2 minute read

One cannot overstate the importance of the first 100 days for a new administration. American President Franklin D. Roosevelt was first to coin this period to chart a course for America that became “The New Deal”. Done well, a president establishes the tone, expectations and agenda for their four-year mandate. It’s also one of the core principles of good governance advocated by the Institute on Governance that government should establish clear policy and programme directions publicly to improve both policy coherence (and hence performance) and accountability (because governments are judged on how they’ve delivered against what they’ve said they’ll do).

New administrations are under intense scrutiny by the public, media, and opposition parties to detect any incongruence with actions, platforms, and statements made during the preceding election campaign. While supporters are looking for leaders to keep promises, critics are equally vigilant to throw shade in hopes to slow, destabilize or wound a new, inexperienced government.

Clarity, conviction and competence are the three C’s of an administration’s early success. A new administration is strengthened by its ability to – ideally flawlessly – telegraph its intentions and vision, to reinforce convictions battle-tested during a campaign, and to execute them, thereby cementing their agenda until the next election.

In the United States the inauguration is the “kick-off” to give citizens the first indication of what the next four years will bring. In Canada, we have the swearing in ceremony and soon after the Speech from the Throne.

In 2015, Prime Minister-Elect Justin Trudeau assembled his Cabinet in waiting on Parliament Hill to travel together to the Governor General’s residence for the swearing in ceremony. The imagery was deliberate: A youthful, diverse, and gender-balanced team taking busses to incent team building akin to the life-long bonds children form on their way to summer camp. That day was planned to the last detail and was executed with military-like precision. The symbolism, tone, and contrast with the previous government was dramatic.

President Joseph Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are also looking to establish clarity, conviction, and competence. Arguably, there are much greater stakes on a global scale. A nation plagued by a pandemic, polarized by racial conflict and socio-economic inequality, submerged in a boiling pot of misinformation and media manipulation sets the scene for either greatness or burning agony during the next four years.

Unlike Canada, which has a Westminster styled, permanent, non-partisan public service at the ready, a good portion of the Biden Administration’s time will be spent recruiting, screening, and appointing its senior public service to provide leadership to deliver on his mandate.

Nevertheless, Canada, the United States closest ally, has a role to play to make sure the first 100 days are successful. Canada needs to assess alignment with agendas and interests.

Major media outlets have written about the common policy interests between Canada and the new Biden Administration, including climate adaptation, building back better, and dealing with increased aggressiveness from China. However, Buy America and the cancelation of the Keystone Pipeline authorization make it clear that there will be “puts and takes” to be factored. Identifying early wins for both countries that align with the clarity of agendas, conviction of constituencies, and competently delivered appears to be in both countries national interest.

The Institute on Governance will be following decisions by the new Administration for clarity, conviction, and competence in its transition, and drawing comparisons to public administration and governance in Canada.

2 minute read

Canadians emerged from a highly sequestered holiday season to learn that many of their elected officials – a mix of federal and provincial parliamentarians, parliamentary secretaries, critics, and ministers – had for various reasons not considered themselves as place-bound as their fellow citizens. Most of these office holders have since apologized (at least after a fashion) and some have resigned from their positions.

Several of these individuals were ministers of the Crown, who didn’t all respond the same way. How does their behaviour align with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility?

There is no objective standard for ministerial resignation. In formal terms, ministers serve at the pleasure of the Governor in Council (i.e., the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor acting on the advice of Cabinet), which in practice means they serve at the discretion of the prime minister (or premier) who may ask for their resignation at any time. Courts have confirmed that this is not an employment relationship and enjoys no security of tenure or procedural constraints.

Ministerial responsibility does not mean that ministers must resign whenever something goes wrong in their portfolios: there is a difference between responsibility and blame. In very broad terms, ministers need to show due diligence in managing their portfolios. The history of ministerial resignations for administrative wrongdoing in Canada is very thin.

Ministers also share in the collective responsibility of Cabinet, which implies the possible need to resign if they can’t publicly abide by Cabinet policies or confidentiality. That usually relates to policy disagreements, but what about behaviour that is unethical, or simply embarrassing?

Unless the minister is personally hell-bent on resignation, this is a matter for a judgement call by the premier, which helps to explain why Ontario’s Minister of Finance resigned while Alberta’s Minister of Municipal Affairs remains in office. The PM/premier may decide that a given minister’s conduct is not helpful to the government, as when it generates bad press and detracts from its credibility or perceived integrity – especially conduct that runs counter to stated government behavioral standards. In such cases the minister may be “asked” for his or her resignation.

In short, if the PM judges that the public’s anger (or the PM’s own) won’t blow over soon enough, the minister is likely to be exiled for at least the time being.

What if a minister refused to politely resign you ask? We’re not aware of such a scenario off the top of our heads, but it wouldn’t be much of a problem given that a minister’s tenure automatically ends when the GG/LG appoints a new minister to the job.

1 minute read

It is our pleasure to announce that Dr. Sara Filbee, Public Servant in Residence in the Dalhousie School of Public Administration, will be the first member of our newly established Fellows Program.

The Fellows Programs was developed during the end of 2020 to enhance our Leading Expertise in the practice of public governance in Canada and abroad. Comprised of recognized leaders in the professional and academic worlds, our team of fellows will work with IOG staff and associates to:

• Originate and collaborate in good governance research and experimentation in their areas of expertise;
• lead and participate in our events and guest lectures; and
• provide advice and counsel on the efficacy and offerings of our programs and services.

Dr. Filbee joins the Fellows Program with a wealth of expertise from her public, non-governmental, and private careers, including Assistant Deputy Minister positions within the Government of Canada, President of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, Corporate Commercial Law Partner and Vice-President for astart-up company providing web-enabled human resources tools.

Dr. Filbee will be working with the IOG to advance her research in the area of complexity in institutional decision-making, providing guest lectures and participating in or leading events.

Good luck to Dr. Filbee and welcome to the IOG Community!

—

If you are interested in learning more about our Fellows Program, visit our webpage or contact us at info@iog.ca.

3 minute read

The CBC chronicling of Covid-19 spending in their series The Big Spend examines the unprecedented $240 billion the federal government handed out during the first eight months of the pandemic. The series puts a spotlight on Justin Trudeau’s 2015 election commitment to have more open and transparent government.

Transparency is essential to accountability and with it a core principle of Good Governance. Transparency takes many forms in government and is governed by a mix of laws, policies and conventions such as the Access to Information Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/index.html and the Privacy Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca… as well as Treasury Board policies relating to Open Government and the values of candour and sincerity in government communications.

Amendments to the Access to Information Act were passed prior to the 2019 Election and brought in mandatory proactive disclosure of Ministerial Briefing Binders as well as other changes.

Canada’s parliamentary institutions are an important source of transparency in our system. The CBC story reveals the Government has been disclosing spending plans regularly, but has been less transparent or clear on ‘who’ has been receiving such funds. Parliament’s ultimate authority is the ‘power of the purse’ in approving the Government’s appropriations. For Parliament to exercise this power, access to accurate and timely information on spending is critical. Parliamentary support also serves as a proxy for public trust. Failure to satisfy Parliament can translate quickly into the public’s confidence that the Government is not acting with its financial interests in mind.

Transparency can be inconvenient. First, it takes limited resources away from what could be argued as a higher priority (addressing the pandemic for example). It also creates a dual risk to the Government on both its content and accuracy. A timely number, data point or detail that is incorrect could be more damaging than taking additional time to be more accurate. The dual edge of transparency sword is therefore competence and trust. If managed well, competence can be demonstrated and to some degree celebrated while public trust also increases. The reverse is also true. Therefore, commitments to transparency, its systems and its completeness are critical to the longevity of governments, particularly minority governments. Spin can be employed as a form or an approach to transparency; however, spin is the domain of communications specialists and political strategists.

The CBC series raises important questions that can be uncomfortable for decision makers. However, the CBC uncovered ‘good news’ too that had been buried in the flood of announcements and spending plans such as the timely and needed distribution of funds to Women’s Shelters Canada.

Significant government spending will always attract the interest of the media and a concerned public. Covid-19 spending and the recent Economic Update have generated numbers including public debt levels not seen since the Second World War.

The Government will need to provide greater transparency on spending either through proactive disclosure or in requests through Parliament, its Standing Committees or the Auditor General of Canada.

While disclosure may reveal some poor decisions, it is that ‘inconvenient truth’ that makes transparency an essential element of Good Governance. The public airing of both good and poor decisions and the systems that generate them are a necessary nuisance that is healthy and vital for good governance.

—

By Stephen M. Van Dine, Senior Vice-President, Public Governance

Born in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Stephen spent his formative teen-age years finishing High School at Sir John Franklin Territorial High school in the Northwest Territories. He also began his career as a community planner with the City of Yellowknife and later with the Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. In 1997, he began working at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, in the Yellowknife Regional Office and transferred to the National Capital Region in 2002. Since then, Stephen has led a number of program, policy and legislative sustainable development initiatives with respect to northern governance, the arctic, the Devolution of Land and Resource Management Responsibilities in the Northwest Territories, the implementation and modification to the Nutrition North Canada program, co-drafting the Inuit Nunangat Declaration, overseeing the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, as well as supporting the legislation to establish of Polar Knowledge Canada. More recently, Stephen has been working on a long-term asset sustainability strategy for Parks Canada Agency along with overseeing critical corporate functions with respect to Information Technology, Cabinet and Regulatory Business, Asset Management and Security.

Stephen has a degree in Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University and a Masters in Public Administration from Queen’s University. Stephen recently completed an Executive Certificate in Energy and the Environment from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Stephen is married and has two children with his wife Marie.

3 minute read

On Wednesday, December 16th, IOG President, Toby Fyfe, and Science and Innovation Practice Lead, Rhonda Moore, had a conversation about the impact of COVID-19 on government and the IOG. You can watch the video interview here and/or read Mr. Fyfe’s blog below.

—

Hindsight is 2020, for we surely didn’t see it coming and, if there is one thing that we can all agree on, 2020 was an annus horribilis. While literally every Canadian has been greatly affected, this piece focuses on the pandemic’s impact on government and the Institute of Governance itself, and looks ahead to the possibilities of 2021.

The lesson for governments and public servants in offices and on the front lines is clear: they provide value. In Canada, all three levels of government demonstrated that they could work quickly, innovate, and collaborate to respond to an unknown, ongoing and rapidly unfolding pandemic.

The lesson for the Institute on Governance is also clear: we can do it too. As a social enterprise, we must generate every penny, and in March like many small businesses, saw our revenues dry up overnight. The team adjusted quickly to the new reality, moving all our leadership programs and courses online, cutting costs and developing new products. It is a tribute to the management team and staff that the IOG today has record numbers in our programs and is sought out to provide valuable advice and insights to government clients.

Looking to 2021, there are three risks that both government and the IOG face. First, fatigue, with the unrelenting pressures to adapt and act with no clearly-defined landing in sight. Second, a rush to normalcy, the desire to go back to the way things were, a pre-pandemic world that is both familiar and comfortable. Three, complacency, that slows down innovation.

For government, it is imperative to understand these risks and to see the signals. While trust in the government spiked last spring, it would be an error to argue, as some have, that Canadians now believe in government unreservedly. Many still feel marginalized and left-out. Many do not believe in what government tells them: think about the anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers and those who continue to believe covid-19 is some kind of exaggerated plot. Unlike last spring, there is no consensus on the way forward, with regional and political polarization on the rise.

Governments need to look at themselves to take lessons from their response to the pandemic. They need to rethink the concept of risk based on both successes and failures from 2020. Learning from the speed with which they acted, they must re-think their institutional structures and how decisions are made. They need to become more inclusive and diverse. Most important, they need to prepare Canadians for an unknown future.

At the IOG, the risk is that we get locked into assumptions about our future, for example, that business will go back to a pre-pandemic, office- and classroom-based normal. To be clear: the IOG’s future business model is open, and for the foreseeable future, we will continue to work with our blended at home/office approach and to modernize to take advantage of the new online environment.

Next year is the year of opportunity. While continuing to respond to the pandemic, governments need to plan for a new future, reach out to marginalized communities, build trust and rethink how their institutions work.

For the IOG we must develop and update our public governance products and services to help governments come out of the pandemic with improved capacity and citizen trust in their institutions and in democracy itself. We must focus on our people so that everyone can contribute based on their abilities and interests.

2 minute read

By Stephen Van Dine, Senior Vice President – Public Governance

—

To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 movie Wall Street, “(The nation’s) business never sleeps”.

Our local, provincial/territorial, Indigenous and federal governments are front and centre in the ongoing fight with Covid-19. At all levels of government, in the foreground and behind the scenes, thousands of public servants including the military and first responders are working around the clock. Like in other crises, public servants are on guard for thee.

Canadians who have chosen a career in the public service, know our communities face challenging times and circumstances.

However, unlike typical surprise events, which have an arc beginning with first responders, rescue/incident management, and then recovery, Covid-19 just keeps coming. To use a cliché, Covid-19 has gone into its zillionth overtime period.

We should be asking serious questions about the ability of all organizations and their people’s ability to sustain the current level of effort. As we head into the 10^th month of the pandemic, and the New Year, we need to pay attention to our people. We need to avoid a ‘crash’ where entire business units fall offline due to burnout and or high turnover. Pockets of this can happen in (large) organizations, but rarely at a whole-of-enterprise level.

At the beginning of the pandemic, some business units actually thrived or re-energized. The mission transformed many less visible teams across government, including often-overlooked internal service members such as procurement, web specialists, IM/IT, accommodations, HR and Finance sections into local heroes supporting working from home for thousands of colleagues. For all public servants, adrenaline and recognition from above have fueled the mission to deliver visible results in uncertain times.

Adrenaline and recognition can be addictive and lead to unhealthy behaviours, unhealthy people, and unhealthy organizations. In small doses, these behaviours can help to overcome inertia and translate into higher performance, and even promotion and increased stature or influence. However, as Covid-19 continues, an overreliance on adrenaline and praise can undermine the sustainability of the pace of the mission.

Looking back, Easter, the May long weekend, and other holidays in the period from June to October, ‘breaks’ were just another workday (and night) as the ‘nation’s business’ did not stand still. As a socially isolated holiday season arrives, can we take time to unplug, uninterrupted, for 48 hrs? Or ideally longer?

Public servants cannot unplug at the same time. However, everyone should be able to get their unfettered 48 hours. Including executives.

For many, the question is how?

It starts at the top.

The top must set the tone. She or he must declare they will be taking 48 hrs (or more) of uninterrupted, unplugged time from this day to this day and that Mary or Mohamed will be in charge. When that boss returns, Mary or Mohamed take their 48 hr period and so on and so on. The top must both set the tone, and ensure everyone gets their turn at a break.

The awkward choices around who gets the 25^th/26^th of December or possibly New Year’s Eve, really are of no consequence during Covid-19.

3 minute read

By Stephen Van Dine, Senior Vice President – Public Governance

—

The fifth anniversary of the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Report and its 94 calls to action to respond to the legacy of the residential school system is a natural time to review how far we have come and how much further we need to go.

While in Opposition, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau committed to implementing all 94 calls to action. In forming Government in 2015, the Trudeau Government began in haste to advance an agenda that put the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples at the centre of its relationship compass.

Momentum was visible immediately. The new Government launched pre-consultation on the subject of a National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) within hours of being sworn in. The Speech from the Throne, Mandate letters and Budget 2016 revealed action on boil water advisories, billions of new dollars for infrastructure and housing, plans to establish “Permanent Bi-lateral Mechanisms” with each of the three national Indigenous Organizations, changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, child protection reforms, the start of specific apologies for historic grievances and much more.

Despite introducing Bill C-15, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act two weeks ago, momentum to respond to the 94 Calls to Action is slowing. This is evidenced by the recent acknowledgement that the Government will not meet its own boil water advisory elimination targets, strife on the East Coast in the lobster fishery, and criticism over the pace of change to respond to the National Inquiry into MMIWG. So…where to from here?

Reconciliation is a difficult concept to pin down as an endpoint. The TRC itself said:

“Reconciliation requires that a new vision, based on a commitment to mutual respect, be developed. It also requires an understanding that the most harmful impacts of residential schools have been the loss of pride and self-respect of Aboriginal people, and the lack of respect that non-Aboriginal people have been raised to have for their Aboriginal neighbours. Reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered.”

Reconciliation, therefore, is ongoing.

Yet, the lack of definition puts the current government in a difficult place to measure progress and to define a solution or end.

To solve the Canadian problem of Reconciliation, Indigenous people and colonial settlers have some work to do to define reconciliation, build a plan, and identify key milestones so that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people can all measure, see, and feel the progress of this momentous journey.

Where are we in our journey? The Truth chapter of the TRC process uncovered difficult and painful truths of the residential school system and provided a cogent set of prescriptions to address those truths. The government received the 94 calls to action produced as a result of that process, and began work almost immediately.

Before undertaking the process to Reconcile, did we ask ourselves “Are we ready?” To date, actions taken towards Reconciliation have left some Canadians wondering whether the recent investments have been worth it while others are impatient for more and faster change.

What if some action was devoted to readiness? What if organizations including companies, public education systems and governments had access to ‘reconciliation readiness’ frameworks or playbooks to guide them safely through the history, the pain, and equipped them with critical core knowledge to be reconciliation ready? If the federal government did, would we be asking the same questions about reconciliation progress five years from now?

What might these products look like? For starters, they could have five basic elements:

• An Uncommon History
  • Pre-contact – life and geography of Indigenous peoples before Columbus and Jacques Cartier;
  • Contact and the Royal Proclamation;
  • Colonization, Residential Schools and Federal Policy
• Rights, Racism & the Socio-Economic Gap
  • The political awakening
  • Two Canada’s
  • Legacy of residential schools and federal policy
• Know thy Neighbour: A local, regional and national portrait of Indigenous communities in Canada
  • Geography
  • Demographics
  • Governance
  • Language, Culture & Traditions
• Taking Stock
  • What has been the relationship between you/organization and Indigenous communities closest to you over the past 5/10 years?
    • Socially/Culturally
    • Politically
    • Economically
    • What are the areas of friction and opportunity for reconciliation?
• Moving Forward Together some Guiding Thoughts
  • Choose a starting point and make an invitation or accept one
  • Its about the relationship and not the task
  • Accept new mistakes will be made
  • The journey is about mutual respect and recognition

Reconciliation is not easy work. Investing in readiness is about doing the background work to get to the staring line much like the dryland training is to an athlete. Once complete, you are set to begin (go) to move the needle forward in reconciliation. It all begins with wanting to.

2 minute read

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland provided an update to federal finances on November 30. The economic outlook is sobering, but not surprising. The fiscal deficit is up a bit from July numbers – to an eye watering $381B – with an acknowledgement that it could go slightly higher before the fiscal year is out. This puts the share of debt to the economy at around 50 per cent. Those arguing for a fiscal anchor or guardrails are disappointed (as we are) although we do have an acknowledgment of the need to “return to a prudent and responsible fiscal path” post pandemic.

The list of items announced in the Speech from the Throne haven’t made it through to the update but we do have the first view of the forward path with the government indicating they expect to spend 3-4 percent of GDP or $100B over several years as part of a stimulus package to jumpstart the economy. For all the talk of a ‘green recovery’ the actual monies here are disappointingly unambitious (less than $5B over the next five years) and a better (but reasonable) plan is hopefully in the offing. As well, childcare would seem to have taken a back seat – to both help struggling families now while pressing an economic lever in the recovery – with only a small downpayment for a secretariat to study the issue further.

In summary, we need a better plan – the stimulus plan is not yet well defined and needs to target those areas that deliver productive growth. Second, we need that plan to be constrained to make sure spending is contained by some economic guardrails and is therefore sustainable. Finally, we need this plan to provide transparency and accountability. The spring budget is an opportunity to do so.

—

By David Murchison, Senior Vice President, International and Iraq

David Murchison has broad experience in both the public and private sectors. This work has covered strategic planning, organizational design and development, policy development, operations and programming evaluation. He has been responsible for work encompassing the energy sector, economic development, the financial sector, small business and infrastructure to name a few.

David retired from the federal public service in October 2018, where his last position was Assistant Deputy Minister – Policy at Infrastructure Canada. Immediately prior he was Canada’s Executive Director at the Asian Development Bank based in the Philippines. He was with Finance Canada’s Financial Sector Policy Branch for most of his time in the public sector, beginning in the mid 1990’s. He began his career at Imperial Oil in Toronto and held various management positions in the downstream business before leaving to run a mid-sized electronics business, also in Toronto. A little later, he and his spouse sought out Ottawa to better balance work and life with what was then a young family.

His consulting assignments have been largely focused in the financial sector, both domestically and internationally.

David has an MA in Economics from Queens University, Kingston Ontario. He completed the Institute of Corporate Directors program in Asia in 2016. David lives in Ottawa with his spouse Helga Ehrlich, a family doctor. They have 3 sons.

4 minute read

Living next door to the feral COVID-19 jungle that is the United States, Canadians would be well advised not to be too smug in our relative success at taming the growing labyrinth of infection. While reports of vaccine readiness are welcome, by many armchair estimates, we have a very difficult three to four months ahead of us.

An interesting comparison may be the four larger of our Commonwealth cousins: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Examining on-line tools such as the Commonwealth COVID-19 Dashboard, Canadians can see how we compare on a daily basis.

While there may be some slight differences between unitary and federal systems of government, we are united in being a part of a value system inherent in the Commonwealth of Nations. We share a respect for both the rule of law and the role of the state.

So, how are we doing comparatively speaking?

We are remarkably Canadian, by firmly landing in the middle. The dragon whisperers within the family are clearly Australia and New Zealand. They have crushed the spread of the virus and seem to have been able to chain it to the ground. CBC put the spotlight on Australia last week.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, the United Kingdom’s numbers continue to climb even after a month-long lockdown – albeit at slower rate.

Canada and South Africa rest in the middle. South Africa’s infection rate increases by 5% daily while Canada’s grows by 2.7% each day.

So what is happening in Canada? An analysis of the second wave trends provides some insights on relative effectiveness of regional measures loosely described as Atlantic Bubbles, Northern Snow Globes, semi-permeable Central Canada, the Wild West, and of course, the British Columbia Dreaming.

Following a relatively calm summer and early fall period, both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island withdrew from the Atlantic Bubble last week in response to a surge in second wave case numbers in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Similar to Australia and New Zealand, the natural geographical moats separating Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island were a competitive advantage in the fight against COVID-19. Similarly, in the North, where remote distances and limited, if not non-existent, transportation infrastructure served a similarly effective purpose when combined with travel restrictions and mandatory quarantine protocols. However, like Atlantic Canada, the virility of the second wave has penetrated the natural defenses of Northern populations.

The infection numbers in the Prairies and British Columbia are now-off-the-charts as BC deals with the compound challenge of deaths due to drug overdoses. Meanwhile Ontario and Quebec continue to cling to semi-permeable restrictions in the face of similarly dramatic increases.

The question for Canada and for Canadians is whether we are prepared to impose a collective, coordinated and unanimous lockdown, safe for schools, until infections rates dramatically drop and the vaccine arrives. Australia and New Zealand are vaccine ready and able to reduce and stamp out isolated outbreaks due to their aggressive strategies employed earlier in the pandemic. Canada’s federal model makes the imposition of a national lockdown through the Emergency Measures Act politically akin to touching the third rail, but it just might be what we need to shock the patient back from the brink. Alternatively, a consensus approach to a lockdown using Executive Federalism (First Ministers Conference) with a negotiated agreement among the Provinces and Territories is also available. Australia and Zealand have proven it is possible to achieve a national consensus to freeze the economy and hibernate until the vaccine arrives.

—

By Stephen M. Van Dine, Senior Vice-President, Public Governance

Born in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Stephen spent his formative teen-age years finishing High School at Sir John Franklin Territorial High school in the Northwest Territories. He also began his career as a community planner with the City of Yellowknife and later with the Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. In 1997, he began working at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, in the Yellowknife Regional Office and transferred to the National Capital Region in 2002. Since then, Stephen has led a number of program, policy and legislative sustainable development initiatives with respect to northern governance, the arctic, the Devolution of Land and Resource Management Responsibilities in the Northwest Territories, the implementation and modification to the Nutrition North Canada program, co-drafting the Inuit Nunangat Declaration, overseeing the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, as well as supporting the legislation to establish of Polar Knowledge Canada. More recently, Stephen has been working on a long-term asset sustainability strategy for Parks Canada Agency along with overseeing critical corporate functions with respect to Information Technology, Cabinet and Regulatory Business, Asset Management and Security.

Stephen has a degree in Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University and a Masters in Public Administration from Queen’s University. Stephen recently completed an Executive Certificate in Energy and the Environment from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Stephen is married and has two children with his wife Marie.

5 minute read

President Barack Obama’s new book “A Promised Land” provides a much-needed antidote to the rapid spiralling exit of President Donald Trump. In his interview with the CBC’s The Current, President Obama remarks on the Trump Presidency as a temporary ‘anomaly’ on the body politic in America.

However, the ‘anomaly’ will be a bumpy one. As President-elect Joe Biden prepares for Inauguration Day with the incumbent adding obstacles by the minute the Trudeau Government (along with its provincial, territorial and Indigenous partners) should be thinking back to 2015 to repay the favor that President Obama gave the then-new Canadian government of Justin Trudeau.

Rewind to that year. Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister with not much more than a year left in President Obama’s second term. At the time, President Obama was focussing on both his legacy and setting the conditions for his successor to maintain momentum, particularly in the areas of climate change, the green economy and less well known, strengthening the relationship with Native American communities. Meanwhile, the new Prime Minister was looking for opportunities to differentiate his government from that of outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper in many of the same policy areas.

The alignment of shared interests catapulted the leaders to sign the first of two Canada/US Joint Statements on “…a common vision of a prosperous and sustainable North American economy, and the opportunities afforded by advancing clean growth…” They emphasized and embraced “the special relationship between the two countries and their history of close collaboration on energy development, environmental protection, and Arctic leadership.” Both leaders cited the newly signed Paris Agreement as the “spark” that brought them together to establish a more continental approach to addressing climate change.

Nine short months later, in December 2016, the two leaders reported achievements by both countries under the first Joint Statement. The United Sates pointed to the fact that “…President Obama created the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area protecting the cultural and subsistence resources of over 80 tribes as well as one of the largest seasonal migrations of marine mammals in the world of bowhead and beluga whales, walrus, ice seals, and sea birds. The U.S. also launched an interagency Economic Development Assessment Team in the Nome region of Alaska to identify future investment opportunities, with other regions to follow. In addition, the Arctic Funders Collaborative (AFC), a group of eleven U.S., Canadian, and international philanthropic foundations, announced the coordination and mobilization of an estimated $27 million in resources for programs across the Arctic over the next three years.”

Meanwhile, in a parallel statement, Canada designated all Arctic Canadian waters as indefinitely off limits to future offshore Arctic oil and gas licensing, to be reviewed every 5 years through a climate and marine science-based life-cycle assessment. In addition, the Prime Minister committed to “…co-develop a new Arctic Policy Framework, with Northerners, Territorial and Provincial governments, and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis People that will replace Canada’s Northern Strategy. The Framework will focus on priority areas identified by the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs’ Special Representative, including education, infrastructure, and economic development. The Framework will include an Inuit-specific component, created in partnership with Inuit, as Inuit Nunangat comprises over a third of Canada’s land mass and over half of Canada’s coastline, and as Inuit modern treaties govern the entirety of this jurisdictional space. In parallel, Canada is reducing the reliance of Northern communities on diesel, by deploying energy efficiency and renewable power. Canada will also, with Indigenous and Northern partners, explore how to support and protect the future of the Arctic Ocean’s ‘last ice area’ where summer ice remains each year.”

The inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017 evaporated the American side of the Joint Statement. President Trump moved swiftly to end any trace of White House support for the Paris Agreement by reversing many of President Obama’s Executive Orders, including commitments under the Joint Statement. He also appointed a new head of the Environmental Protection Agency committed to dial back environmental regulations, removed references to climate change from all federal websites and opened up previously protected lands from oil and gas development. If you were a public servant scientist or policy analyst working on climate change you hid under your desk.

Meanwhile, on the Northern side of the border the Trudeau Government continued to advance its commitments under the Obama/Trudeau Joint Statement including reaching a deal with the provinces, territories, and three national Indigenous organizations on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Some measures generated significant controversy for the still new government such as a new tax on carbon as well as the five-year ban on oil and gas exploration in Canadian Arctic waters.

President-elect Joe Biden has named both his Secretary of State nominee and John Kerry as his Climate Ambassador signaling the beginnings of his foreign policy agenda for his new Administration. Looking north, the new Administration has a willing and ready partner to renew and replace the last Democratic Administration’s commitments with a new and timely Biden/Trudeau Joint Statement to build a new promised land on both sides of the border.

—

By Stephen M. Van Dine, Senior Vice-President, Public Governance

Born in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Stephen spent his formative teen-age years finishing High School at Sir John Franklin Territorial High school in the Northwest Territories. He also began his career as a community planner with the City of Yellowknife and later with the Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. In 1997, he began working at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, in the Yellowknife Regional Office and transferred to the National Capital Region in 2002. Since then, Stephen has led a number of program, policy and legislative sustainable development initiatives with respect to northern governance, the arctic, the Devolution of Land and Resource Management Responsibilities in the Northwest Territories, the implementation and modification to the Nutrition North Canada program, co-drafting the Inuit Nunangat Declaration, overseeing the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, as well as supporting the legislation to establish of Polar Knowledge Canada. More recently, Stephen has been working on a long-term asset sustainability strategy for Parks Canada Agency along with overseeing critical corporate functions with respect to Information Technology, Cabinet and Regulatory Business, Asset Management and Security.

Stephen has a degree in Urban and Regional Planning from Ryerson University and a Masters in Public Administration from Queen’s University. Stephen recently completed an Executive Certificate in Energy and the Environment from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Stephen is married and has two children with his wife Marie.