The Devolution of Natural Resources and Nunavut’s Constitutional Status

Abstract

Nunavut was created by federal statute in 1999, to meet the Crown’s obligations under Article 4 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) and the associated Nunavut Political Accord. The Nunavut Act was based upon the Northwest Territories Act, but “modernized.” Since the 1905 creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan from the North-West Territories, territorial governments have gradually evolved in the direction of provincial status, while remaining under ultimate federal jurisdiction. Important matters to be reviewed include the following: (1) Are the parties (the federal government, the Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.) committed to serious negotiations? (2) What additional legislative powers would be conferred with the devolution of Crown lands and resources? (3) Will the existing federal programs for the administration of Crown lands and resources be adequately resourced? (4) To what extent will devolution provide significant own-source revenues to the Nunavut government, both in the short run and in the longer term? (5) How may federal-Nunavut fiscal transfers be affected? (6) In what respect is the devolution process likely to enhance or detract from the meeting of government obligations pursuant to the NLCA, particularly Article 23? (7) Given the provisions of the Nunavut Act, the NLCA, and federal-provincial considerations, how will the offshore areas and their resources be treated? The ultimate questions to be considered are whether the devolution of Crown lands and resources will advance the constitutional status of Nunavut; whether such devolution would be otherwise beneficial to the government and people of Nunavut; and whether provincial status is ultimately the best objective for Nunavut or, as Gordon Robertson describes it, “a mistaken goal.”

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

“…Indeed, devolution negotiations have not moved beyond the protocol agreement mainly because of federal perceptions of Nunavut's capacity. The GN's well documented growing pains have made federal officials reluctant to pursue devolution negotiations until the GN can properly address its capacity issues, which include satisfying the s. 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requirement to hire Inuit officials, and simply filling vacant positions in the regional government offices (Rawson 2011; Cameron and Campbell 2009: 216). This requirement to demonstrate capacity as a precondition for devolution was confirmed in a recent government report written by lawyer Paul Mayer for the federal government in 2007 (Mayer 2007).…”

“…Beginning with the federal government, federal officials have long been interested in the territorial north for a variety of reasons. Broadly speaking, federal policy has long been driven by the nation-building imperative, in which the political development of the Canadian territories was seen as the last frontier in the construction of a fully mature and independent Canada (Cameron and Campbell 2009: 199; Coates and others 2008: 201; Richardson 2011; Robertson and others 2010). Tied to this objective has been a strong and consistent desire to defend the sovereign interests of the Canadian government in the region against competing claims by other nations (Coates and others 2008: 59, 116).…”

Go North, Young Scholar, Go North

“… 6 In addition to writing for quasi-academic venues such as The Canadian Parliamentary Review and Policy Options , Northern consultants publish in refereed journals and with academic presses. A small sampling would include Cameron (2009); Cameron and Campbell (2009); Campbell, Fenge and Hanson (2011); Hicks (2009); Merritt et al (1989); Merritt and Fenge (1990); Usher (2000, 2003). …”

Introduction: Dealing with Resource Development in Canada’s North

“…Most of the region now has established modern comprehensive land claims (Alcantara, 2013;McPherson, 2003;Saku, 2002). Territorial governments now have powers increasingly close to that of provinces (Cameron & Campbell, 2009;Dacks, 1990;Graham White, 2009). Legal institutions to assess the environmental, social, and economic impacts of development have been established (Armitage, 2005;Fitz patrick, Sinclair, & Mitchell, 2008;Noble & Hanna, 2015).…”