 |
Most Canadians followed closely the national constitutional debate which culminated in the referendum of October 26, 1992. The long-term implications of that vote on renewal of the national constitution are still being discussed. Northerners too, are sorting out their constitutional future, as this issue of Northern Perspectives shows.
For over 25 years, Inuit have argued for the creation of a new territory -- Nunavut -- in the eastern and central Arctic. In early May, 1992 residents across the North voted in favour of the boundary to divide the Northwest Territories (NWT). Six months later, Inuit voted in favour of the Nunavut Agreement, a comprehensive land claim settlement between the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut (TFN) representing Inuit, and the federal government. The territorial government also signed the agreement, as a member of the federal government's negotiating team. The federal cabinet is soon-to-consider this agreement, but its approval is thought to be assured.
|
In the Nunavut Agreement, the federal government promises to simultaneously introduce into Parliament two pieces of legislation. The first, to divide the NWT in order to create the long-awaited Nunavut Territory, and the second, to ratify the land claim agreement. Inuit and the federal and territorial governments concluded in April of 1992 a Nunavut Political Accord that deals with the financing and mechanics of dividing the NWT, and specifies 1999 as the date on which the Nunavut Territorial Government will assume power.
How has it been possible for a small number of Inuit to persuade the federal government to establish a new territory, with all that this entails, including the additional financial costs of running the North? John Merrit, a member of CARC's board, and a long-time advisor to Inuit organizations, who was deeply involved in land claim negotiations and subsequent drafting of the Nunavut Political Accord, outlines some reasons which explain the Inuit success.
Inuit form the overwhelming majority of people who live in Nunavut. As such, Inuit opted for a public government, along lines familiar to Canadians in the South, as their preferred means to self-determination. In the western Arctic and Mackenzie Valley, Dene, Metis and Inuvialuit share the stage with significant numbers of non-natives, many of whom have been in the North for years, and call it home.
Following division of the NWT, Dene, Metis and Inuvialuit will be outnumbered in the residual western territory by non natives. If significant oil, gas and mineral development takes place in the North in coming years and results in additional population migration to the North from the South, aboriginal people could become heavily outnumbered in their homeland. Understandably this causes nervousness. Aboriginal people north of 60 degrees do not want to be swamped by the new arrivals, and to risk repeating the history of the prairie provinces. This is one reason why it is important now to define new constitutional arrangements that will ensure a place for everyone in the New Western Territory. Doing so is proving to be a difficult and delicate task.
To move the debate forward, the territorial government established in summer 1991 a broadly-based Commission for Constitutional Development (chaired by Jim Bourque)to "develop a comprehensive constitutional proposal for those regions of the Northwest Territories remaining after the creation of Nunavut for consideration by way of plebiscite." In April 1992, following extensive public consultation, this commission released its phase one report: Working Toward a Common Future. This important report is now being considered by the territorial government and various interests in the North. Marina Devine, a Yellowknife-based journalist and staff member to the commission, outlines in this Northern Perspectives, the commission's report, and speculates as to its likely impact.
The commission came to the following basic conclusion: "the New Western Territory constitution affirm that all authority to govern belongs to the people, collectively, and flows, collectively, from them to their institutions of government." This principle sounds innocuous enough, and resonates back through many political philosophers to Hobbes and Locke. But behind this principle lies real criticism, articulated before the commission during public hearings, of the performance and legitimacy of the Yellowknife-based territorial government. The territorial government employs about 6,000 people and has an annual budget in excess of $1 billion, and has been operating out of Yellowknife since 1967. In response to this criticism, the commission recommended that a district order of governments be established in the West, and that they assume wide-ranging authority.
If this recommendation is accepted and implemented, outlying regions would exercise considerable power now in the hands of the territorial government. Critics of this approach suggest this is a recipe for the politial balkanization of the western Arctic and Mackenzie Valley, and would perpetuate a strong federal presence in this area for years to come. This is not an outcome favoured by non-natives in the North. Furthermore, critics of the report note that the territorial government is already heavily decentralized.
This report is not the only model for constitutional development in the West that is under discussion. The territorial government commissioned Garry H. Beatty and others early in 1991 to examine how to reduce costs and to increase the efficiency of government in the North. This report -- Strength at Two Levels -- proposed a rationalization and simplification of the territorial government by merging line departments, disestablishing various boards, and furthering efforts to transfer certain powers and responsibilities to municipal governments.
This proposal too would likely result in a lessening of the roles and responsibilities of the territorial government, for fiscal as well as ideological reasons. But it is important to note that this report advocates increased strength at two levels only-territorial and municipal. Regional levels of government are not supported. Moreover, while the Bourque report sees the need to decentralize power, the Beatty report proposes decentralization of programmes. Bourque's recom- mendations would result in regions assuming law-making powers, while Beatty sees this responsibility staying in the hands of the territorial government. Within districts, Bourque forsees many institutions at work, including band and tribal councils.
Judging by policy statements made by the territorial government in summer 1992, Yellowknife is moving to implement the recommendations of Mr Beatty and his colleagues rather than those of the Commission on Constitutional Development. But it is still early days yet. No matter what the constitutional and political future holds for the North, both Nunavut and the New Western Territory will remain beholden to financial transfers from Ottawa for many years to come. While Ottawa has agreed to create Nunavut, it remains to be seen what position, if any, the federal government will take in relation to constitutional development in the West. But not only the cost of constitutional development in the West should exercise Ottawa. In addition, the federal government will have to deal with growing demands for regional and community based aboriginal self-government in the western Arctic and Mackenzie Valley. After all, Ottawa is the constitutional guardian of the North and practical action here is not dependent upon agreement with the provinces. It is possible that the Bourque report will receive a friendly reception in Ottawa from those committed to implementing aboriginal self-government. On the other hand, Ottawa may also conclude that it does not have the money to pay for new ways of doing things.
The search for a political accommodation and new constitutional arrangements in the West will become more urgent as the time for Inuit to leave the NWT and to set-up their own government draws near. Canadians are experiencing great difficulty in renewing the national constitution, and doing this is no longer a priority of the federal or provincial governments. In the North, however, constitutional development in Nunavut and the New Western Territory is of continuing and pressing importance. Perhaps the rest of Canada will be able to learn from the debate in the North?
Terry Fenge is Executive Director of CARC.
