Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:42:31.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences, perceptions, and veto players: explaining devolution negotiation outcomes in the Canadian territorial north

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2012

Christopher Alcantara
Christopher Alcantara*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON N2L 3C5, Canada (calcantara@wlu.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the early part of the 20th century, the federal government has engaged in a long and slow process of devolution in the Canadian Arctic. Although the range of powers devolved to the territorial governments has been substantial over the years, the federal government still maintains control over the single most important jurisdiction in the region, territorial lands and resources, which it controls in two of the three territories, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. This fact is significant for territorial governments because gaining jurisdiction over their lands and resources is seen as necessary for dramatically improving the lives of residents and governments in the Canadian north. Relying on archival materials, secondary sources, and 33 elite interviews, this paper uses a rational choice framework to explain why the Yukon territorial government was able to complete a final devolution agreement relating to lands and resources in 2001 and why the governments of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have not. It finds that the nature and distance of federal-territorial preferences, combined with government perceptions of aboriginal consent and federal perceptions of territorial capacity and maturity, explain the divergent outcomes experienced by the three territorial governments in the Canadian arctic.

The following acronyms are employed: AIP: Agreement-in-Principle; DTA: Devolution Transfer Agreement; GEB: gross expenditure base; GN: Government of Nunavut; GNWT: Government of Northwest Territories; NCLA: Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; NTI: Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; NWT; Northwest Territories; ON: Ontario; TFF: Territorial Formula Financing; UFA: Umbrella Final Agreement; YDTA: Yukon Devolution Transfer Agreement; YTG: Yukon Territorial Government; YK: Yukon;

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 167 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abele, F., Courchene, T., Seidle, F.L., and St-Hilaire, F.. (editors). 2009. Northern exposure: peoples, powers and prospects in Canada's north. Montreal: IRPP.Google Scholar
Abele, F., and Prince, M.J.. 2008. A little imagination required: how Canada funds territorial and northern aboriginal governments. In: Maslove, A. (editor). How Ottawa spends 2008–09. Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Alcantara, C. 2007. Explaining aboriginal treaty negotiation outcomes in Canada: the cases of the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador. Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alcantara, C. 2008. To treaty or not to treaty? Aboriginal peoples and comprehensive land claims negotiations in Canada. Publius: Journal of Federalism 38 (2): 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauliu, T. 2011. Member's statements. Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. Hansard. 16th Assembly, 5th Session, 4 February 2011.Google Scholar
Bone, R. M. 2002. The three territories: an introduction. In: The Canadian north: embracing change. Ottawa: Centre for Research and Information on Canada.Google Scholar
Cameron, K., and Campbell, A.. 2009. The devolution of natural resources and Nunavut's constitutional status. Journal of Canadian Studies 43 (2): 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, K., and White, G.. 1995. Northern governments in transition. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
Cameron, K., and Gomme, G.. 1991. The Yukon's constitutional foundations. Vol. II. A compendium of documents relating to the constitutional development of the Yukon territory. Whitehorse: Northern Directories.Google Scholar
Canada. 1898. An act to provide for the government of the Yukon District. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services. URL: http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/yta_1898.html (Accessed 2 October 2009).Google Scholar
Canada. 1997. Evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. 4 November 1997. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). 2007. Akaitcho chiefs demand N.W.T. premier's resignation. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News North 16 May 2007.Google Scholar
CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). 2011. N.W.T. signs on for province-like powers. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News North 26 January 2011.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. 1990. Politics by remote control: historical perspectives on devolution in Canada's north. In: Dacks, G. (editor). Devolution and constitutional development in the Canadian north. Ottawa: Carleton University Press: 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chretien, J. 1969. Speech by the Honourable Jean Chretien, P.C., M.P., Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development before the Yukon Territorial Council. 12 November 1969. Ottawa: Department of Indian Affairs (MG 32 B22 29–7).Google Scholar
Coates, K.S., Lackenbauer, P.W., Morrison, W. R., and Poelzer, G.. 2009. Arctic front: defending Canada in the far north. Toronto: Thomas Allen Publishers.Google Scholar
Coates, K.S., and Morrison, W.R.. 2005. Land of the midnight sun: a history of the Yukon. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacks, G. 1990. Devolution and constitutional development in the Canadian north. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dacks, G., and Coates, K.S.. 1988. Northern communities: the prospects for empowerment. Edmonton: Boreal Institute for Northern Studies.Google Scholar
Dickerson, M.O. 1992. Whose north? Political change, political development and self-government in the Northwest Territories. Vancouver: UBC Press/Arctic Institute of North America.Google Scholar
Expert Panel on Equalization and TFF. 2005. Discussion paper: Key Issues for the review of equalization and territorial formula financing. 31 March 2005. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
Feehan, J. 2009. Natural resource devolution in the territories: current status and unresolved issues. In: Abele, F., Courchene, T., Seidle, F.L., and St-Hilaire, F.. Northern exposure: peoples, powers and prospects in Canada's north. Montreal: IRPP.Google Scholar
Gargan, S., and Nerysoo, R.. 2011. Letter to Prime Minister Harper: NWT lands and resource devolution agreement-in-principle. 26 January 2011. Inuvik.Google Scholar
Government of Canada, Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. 2008. Lands and resources devolution negotiation protocol. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
Government of Canada and Government of the Northwest Territories. 2010. Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution agreement-in-principle. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
Government of Canada, Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Aboriginal Summit. 2004. Northwest Territories lands and resources devolution framework agreement. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
Government of Canada and Government of the Yukon. 2001. Yukon Northern Affairs Program devolution transfer agreement. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 1989. Principles underlying the GNWT position on the relationship between claims implementation and devolution. 30 November 1989.Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2006-003, 13–5.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 1990. Background: devolution/implementation working group. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2007-006, 4–10.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 1993. Notes of meeting with Hiram Beaubier and Bernie Funston. Ottawa. 7 April 1993. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2007-006, 2–2.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 1995. Devolution speaking points for consideration. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2007-006, 2–12.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 1996. Decision paper: devolution of natural resources. 16 May 1996. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2007-006, 1–3.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 1998. NWT Resource revenue sharing: a discussion paper. 1 July 1998. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2004-024, 2–1.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 2000. Devolution: aboriginal issues in devolution negotiations. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2004-024, 2–2.Google Scholar
GNWT (Government of Northwest Territories). 2007. Resource revenue sharing agreement-in-principle. 9 May 2007. Yellowknife.Google Scholar
Government of Nunavut. 2010. Nunavut Hansard. 11 March 2010.Google Scholar
Grady, P. 2001. Approaches for resource revenue sharing among Northwest Territories governments. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2004-024, 2–1.Google Scholar
Health Canada. 2005. Ten years of health transfer first nations and Inuit control. Ottawa: Department of Public Works and Government Services. URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/finance/_agree-accord/10_years_ans_trans/index-eng.php (accessed 3 November 2009).Google Scholar
Henderson, A. 2007. Nunavut: rethinking political culture. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Hurley, M.C. 2002. Bill C-39, The Yukon Act. Ottawa: Government of Canada: Law and Government Division. URL: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=C39&source=library_%20prb&Parl=37&Ses=1 (accessed 2 November 2009).Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs. 1995. Briefing note: progress on devolution of land and water. 7 March 1995. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2007-006, 2–12.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs. 1994. Briefing note: federal devolution of natural resource management. 17 August 1994. Yellowknife: NWT Archives G-2007-006, 2–12.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Core Group. 1993. Northwest Territories development: division, the western constitution, devolution. 14 October 1993. Yellowknife: NWT Archives: G-2007-006, 3–4.Google Scholar
Irlbacher-Fox, S., and Mills, S.J.. 2007. Devolution and resource revenue sharing in the Canadian north: achieving fairness across generations. Toronto (Conference paper for the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation).Google Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O., and Verba, S.. 1994. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. 2010. History of the Legislative Assembly. Yellowknife: The Legislative Assembly of the NWT. URL: http://www.assembly.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/factshistoryofthelegislativeassembly. aspx (accessed 15 July 2010).Google Scholar
Makohoniuk, R. 2010. Tlicho government does not support the draft devolution AIP. Tlicho Government Press Release 29 October 2010.Google Scholar
May, K. 2010. Aboriginal leaders sound off on devolution. Northern News Services 1 November 2010.Google Scholar
Mayer, P. 2007. The Mayer Report on Nunavut devolution. Ottawa: Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.Google Scholar
McArthur, D. 2007. The changing architecture of government in northern Canada west of Nunavut. Ottawa (Paper delivered at The Art of the State IV: Northern exposure), Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. 1996. Oral questions. Whitehorse: Yukon Legislative Assembly. Hansard. 28th Legislature, 2nd Session. 25 March 1996.Google Scholar
Memorandum of Intent on Devolution and Resource Revenue Sharing. 22 May 2001. (Copy with author).Google Scholar
Michael, J.M. 1987. From Sissons to Meyer: the administrative development of the Yukon Government 1948–1979. Whitehorse: Yukon Archives.Google Scholar
Morrison, D.R. 1968. The politics of the Yukon Territory, 1898–1909. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Natcher, D.C., and Davis, S.. 2007. Rethinking devolution: challenges for aboriginal resource management in the Yukon Territory. Society and Natural Resources 20 (3): 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, A. 2006. Strengthening Canada's territories and putting equalization back on track. Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations (The Report of the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing).Google Scholar
Okalik, P. 2006. Devolution and nation building in Canada's north. Iqaluit: Government of Nunavut (Speech to the Public Policy Forum Seminar on Economic Transformation North of 60. 13 December 2006).Google Scholar
Raven, A. 2005. Feds have no right: DFN. Northern News Services. 18 March 2005.Google Scholar
Rayner, J. 2001. Fiscal Relations Between the Federal and Territorial Governments in Canada. Consortium for Economic Policy Research and Advice.Google Scholar
Roland, F. 2008. Oral questions. Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. Hansard. 16th Assembly, 5th Session, 18 October 2008.Google Scholar
Simeon, R. 2006. Federal-provincial diplomacy: the making of recent policy in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, S. 1991. The Yukon's constitutional foundations, Vol. I. The Yukon chronology. Whitehorse: Northern Directories.Google Scholar
Stokell, S. 2011. New Tlicho grand chief to focus on ‘unity’. Northern News Service 28 March 2011.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. 2008. Dehcho first nations examine its options. Northern News Service 3 February 2008.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto players: how political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unrau, J. 2007. Handley brushes off Akaitcho demand that he leave town. Northern News Service. 21 May 2007.Google Scholar
White, G. 2009. Nunavut and the Inuvialuit settlement region: differing models of northern governance. In: Abele, F., Courchene, J.T., Seidle, F.L., and St-Hilaire, F. (editors). Northern exposure: peoples, powers and prospects in Canada's north. Ottawa: The Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google Scholar
White, G. 2002. Politics and government in the territorial north: familiar and exotic. Ottawa: Centre for Research and Information on Canada (The CRIC Papers – The Canadian north: embracing change. June 2002).Google Scholar
Wright, R. 1995. Report to the Honourable Ronald Irwin re The devolution by DIAND of provincial-like powers to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Ottawa: INAC.Google Scholar
Yakeleya, N. 2011. Members’ statements. Yellowknife: Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly. Hansard. 16th Assembly, 5th Session, 16 February 2011.Google Scholar
Yukon Government. 2011. Yukon welcomes PM's commitment to improve resource revenue sharing agreement. Press Release #11–132. Whitehorse: Yukon Government.Google Scholar
Zaslow, M. 1988. The northward expansion of Canada, 1914–1967. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.Google Scholar