Inuit autonomy in the Canadian Arctic: comparing treaty federalism in Nunavut and Nunatsiavut

ABSTRACT

When examining the institutional landscape in Canada’s Arctic regions, one thing that is particularly striking is the diversity of autonomy regimes that have emerged through the negotiation of treaties with Indigenous Peoples. This article contrasts the experiences of the Nunavut government (a public government administering a territory with an Inuit majority) and the Nunatsiavut government (an Inuit-only government nested within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador). What explains the development of these two different types of institutional arrangements that emerged out of similar processes of treaty negotiation? And what are the political consequences of these diverging paths? We first discuss the historical foundations of treaty-based Indigenous autonomy regimes in Northern Canada. We then argue that two factors are particularly relevant to understanding the different trajectories of Nunavut and Nunatsiavut. First is the timing of treaty negotiations, which opened different institutional possibilities at critical junctures, and second is the geopolitical context specific to the two regions. Lastly, we look at some of the political implications of these two models, focusing on the way identity is mediated and on the distinctive multilevel governance dynamics they induce.

KEYWORDS:

• Treaties
• Indigenous
• Inuit
• Nunavut
• Nunatsiavut
• Canada

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the editors of the special issue and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

^1. Abele et al., Northern Exposure.

^2. See inter alia Rodon, “Le Nunavut”; White, We Are in Charge; Hicks and White, Made in Nunavut; Alcantara, Negotiating the Deal.

^3. The Canadian Constitution recognises three distinct groups of Indigenous Peoples: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. First Nations are primarily located in Canada’s provinces, although they are also present in the northern regions. Inuit communities are found in the Arctic regions of Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Quebec, and Labrador.

^4. See inter alia Alcantara and Wilson, “The Dynamics of Intrajurisdictional Relations”; Hicks and White, Made in Nunavut; Rodon, “Le Nunavut” and “Working Together”; White, “We Are in Charge”; White and Alcantara, “Institutional Design”; Wilson et al., Nested Federalism.

^5. White, “Traditional aboriginal values”; White, “We, The Inuit of Labrador”; White, “We Are in Charge”.

^6. McMahon and Alcantara, “Running for elected office”.

^7. See inter alia Alcantara and Wilson, “The Dynamics of Intrajurisdictional Relations”; Wilson et al., Nested Federalism; White and Alcantara, “Institutional Design and Inuit Governance”.

^8. White and Alcantara, ibid.

^9. Steinmo et al., Structuring Politics; Hall and Taylor, “Political science”.

^10. Pierson, “Increasing Returns”.

^11. Mahoney and Thelen, Explaining institutional change.

^12. Capoccia, “Critical Junctures; Emmenegger, “Agency in historical institutionalism”.

^13. Mahoney and Thelen, Explaining institutional change; Hacker et al., “Drift and Conversion”.

^14. Pierson Politics in Time; Broschek, Federalism and Political Change.

^15. Pierson, ibid.

^16. Alcantara, Negotiating the Deal.

^17. Watts, Comparing Federal Systems.

^18. Borrows, “Canada’s Colonial Constitution”; Henderson, “Creating Inclusive Canadian Federalism”.

^19. Henderson, ibid.

^20. Papillon, “Nation to nation?”; Fenge, “Negotiating and Implementing”.

^21. Sabin, Federation Within a Federation?; White, “Treaty federalism”; Wilson et al., Nested Federalism; Papillon, ibid.

^22. Borrows “Canada’s Colonial Constitution”.

^23. Slattery, “The Royal Proclamation”; Borrows, ibid.

^24. Calder et al. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313.

^25. Fenge. “Negotiating and Implementing”.

^26. Feit, “Negotiating Recognition”.

^27. Feit, ibid.

^28. The Charlottetown Accord, which included, among other things, the recognition of a “third order” of Indigenous governments within the Canadian federation, was defeated in a Canada-wide referendum in 1993.

^29. Canada, “Aboriginal Self-Government”.

^30. Sabin, Federation Within a Federation?; Wilson et al., Nested Federalism; Papillon, “Nation to nation?”.

^31. Wilson et al., Nested Federalism; White and Alcantara, “Institutional Design and Inuit Governance”.

^32. Statistics Canada, “Census Profile”.

^33. Abele and Rodon, “Inuit diplomacy”.

^34. Amagoalik, Changing the Face.

^35. Ibid.: 61–62.

^36. Ibid.

^37. Rodon, “Le Nunavut”.

^38. Nunavut Agreement, art. 4.1.1.

^39. Rodon, “Le Nunavut”; Hicks and White, Made in Nunavut.

^40. Baglow, Foreign bodies: 48.

^41. Ibid: 50.

^42. Nunavut Implementation Commission Report 1995 and 1996.

^43. Hicks and White, Made in Nunavut.

^44. Williamson, “Inuit gender parity”.

^45. see Hicks and White, Made in Nunavut, for a detailed description of the Nunavut Government and its functioning.

^46. Canada, “Nunavut Lands”.

^47. White and Alcantara, “Institutional Design”.

^48. Rodon, “Working Together”; White, Indigenous Empowerment.

^49. Rodon, “Nunavut”.

^50. Alcantara and Wilson, “The Dynamics of Intrajurisdictional Relations”.

^51. Hicks and White, Made in Nunavut.

^52. White “We are in Charge”.

^53. Tanner et al., “Aboriginal Peoples”; White, ibid.

^54. Haysom, “The struggle for recognition”.

^55. Haysom, ibid.; White, ibid.

^56. White and Alcantara. “Institutional Design”.

^57. White, ibid.

^58. White, ibid.

^59. White and Alcantara, ibid.

^60. Nunavut Act, “Section 28(2)”.

^61. White, ibid.

^62. White, ibid.

^63. Rodon, “Nunavut”.

^64. George, Inuit Representation.

^65. Ibid.

^66. Qikiqtani Inuit Association for the eastern part of Nunavut, Kivalliq Inuit Association for the central part, and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association for the western region.

^67. Alcantara and Wilson, “The Dynamics of Intrajurisdictional Relations”.

^68. Quassa, We Need to Know’ 187.

^69. Rodon, “Nunavut”; Alcantara and Wilson, “The Dynamics of Intrajurisdictional Relations”.; White and Alcantara, “Institutional Design”.

^70. NTI, “Inuit Self-Government”.

^71. Inutiq, Hungry Days in Nunavut.

^72. White and Alcantara, “Institutional Design”.

^73. White, “We are in Charge”.

^74. Papillon, “Nation to nation?”; Wilson et al, Nested Federalism.

^75. Rodon, “Nunavut”.

^76. Alcantara and Wilson, “The Dynamics of Intrajurisdictional Relations”.

^77. Wilson et al., Nested Federalism.

^78. Wilson et al., Nested Federalism’ 139.