Negotiating Aboriginal Self-Government Agreements in Canada: An Analysis of the Inuvialuit Experience

Abstract

In 1973, the federal government of Canada invited Aboriginal groups to enter into comprehensive land claims negotiations to settle outstanding claims not addressed by historical treaties. After eight years of negotiations, the Inuvialuit became the second group in Canada to sign a modern treaty, doing so in 1984. Missing from that agreement, however, was a self-government chapter, which was not open to negotiation at that time. In 1996, the Inuvialuit initiated self-government negotiations with the Crown but have yet to conclude an agreement despite increased institutional capacity. What explains this puzzle? Drawing upon the existing literature on land claims negotiations, Aboriginal self-government and historical institutionalism, we analyze a variety of primary and secondary sources to argue that a number of institutional and non-institutional factors have prevented the Inuvialuit from successfully completing self-government negotiations with the Crown.

The Future of Canadian Political Science: Boundary Transgressions, Gender and Anti-Oppression Frameworks

“…Certain scholars (Alcantara and Davidson, 2015; Ladner, 2005; Voth, 2016) assessing the state's treatment of Indigenous peoples have abandoned this traditional focus on institutional factors. For example, Alcantara and Davidson (2015) compare the institutional and non-institutional factors influencing successful self-government negotiations between the federal government and specific Aboriginal groups. In doing so, they contend that a combination of these factors—policy evolution, territorial devolution, competition for land claims and internal cohesion among groups themselves—account for varying outcomes between self-government and land claim negotiation processes.…”

“…In doing so, they contend that a combination of these factors—policy evolution, territorial devolution, competition for land claims and internal cohesion among groups themselves—account for varying outcomes between self-government and land claim negotiation processes. While the incorporation of non-institutional factors enriches previous analyses of self-government negotiations in Canada (Ladner, 2017), these factors are assessed within a liberal democratic framework defined by the fundamental tension between the Government of Canada favouring “arrangements that respect the existing constitutional and legal orders of Canada,” and many Aboriginal groups seeking “their ability to exercise their right to self-determination” (Alcantara and Davidson 2015: 554). Despite naming this tension, the language of an intersectional anti-oppression framework is absent, submerging how racism and colonialism have shaped the self-government negotiation process.…”

Taking the Field: 50 Years of Indigenous Politics in theCJPS

“…Using a mixed method approach which pairs quantitative and qualitative research, Scholtz shows how the shifting political landscape resulting from judicial uncertainty has impacted the federal government's approach to its specific claims policy. Similarly, Alcantara's numerous studies of modern treaty and self-government negotiations (2007, 2009, 2015) have addressed key areas of interest for both Canadians and Indigenous peoples, looking at issues of concern for municipalities affected by comprehensive claim negotiations, and examining factors which have prevented success for communities such as the Inuvialuit in negotiating comprehensive claims and self-government agreements.…”

Eliminating Indigenous Jurisdictions: Federalism, the Supreme Court of Canada, and Territorial Rationalities of Power

“…Indeed, political scientists such as Radha Jhappan have long recognized that the federal and provincial divisions of power under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 function as a “power-grid” that limit possibilities for Aboriginal self-government (Jhappan, 1995). Likewise, Christopher Alcantara and Adrienne Davidson have also noted that in the context of Aboriginal self-government, “the government of Canada prefers arrangements that respect the existing constitutional and legal orders of Canada” (2015: 554). We build upon this scholarship by not only drawing attention to the structuring effects of federalism within the cognitive frameworks of the judiciary, but also the manner in which the court itself functions as federalism's handmaiden by eliminating Indigenous legal orders and permitting federal and provincial incursions into Indigenous territories 4…”