NORTHERN SOVEREIGNTY AND ABORIGINAL SELF-DETERMINATION

April 7, 2010

PREPARED FOR:

2010 ANNUAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS (AAG) CONFERENCE

APRIL 14TH, WASHINGTON, DC, USAPROGRAM IDENTIFICATION # 90049433

SUBMITTED BY:

JAMES A. UMPHERSONPHD STUDENT,

TRENT UNIVERSITY,PETERBOROUGH, ON, CANADA

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the meaning of Northern colonialism and the drive for Northern

Aboriginal Sovereignty. Self-government agreements and the conceptual frameworks are used to

drive the process and guide Aboriginal self-determination. The Tlicho Agreement will provide

the reference point for exploration and evaluation of the conceptual frameworks. It was chosen

because it represents the first comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement in the

Northwest Territories. Northern Aboriginal communities and the Tlicho Government are

important because, as Irlbacher-Fox (p. 6) posits in the article Governance In Canada's

Northwest Territories: Emerging Institutions and Governance Issues, "effective governments and

circumpolar governance require the participation of indigenous peoples, active involvement in

economic development, human and social development, and inclusive governance". In this

sense, my selection of a Northern Aboriginal study area supports research designed to curb the

encroachment of what Chaturvedi has called "governments bent on integrating and assimilating

[Aboriginal people]." This paper also follows the recent trend in the North where and the

demands of indigenous peoples for self-government and political autonomy.

Page 2 of 38

Introduction

“I want to get rid of the Indian problem….Our objective is to continue until there is not a single

Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed” (Fleras and Elliott 1992 p. 40).

In 1920 Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs echoed the Canadian

government’s position on Aboriginal issues. Scott’s assertion reflects the view that Aboriginal

people must be saved from their own primitiveness by the benefits of modernization by a

continuing attempt and persistent refusal to acknowledge the reality of their own cultural,

political, and economic systems (Usher 1982). While some might argue that this position of the

Government no longer applies, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that throughout the

history of Canada—and in recent memory—the statement is not as anachronistic as would be

assumed.

This research paper examines the meaning of internal colonialism and self-government

agreements and the conceptual frameworks that are used to drive the process and guide

Aboriginal self-determination. The Tłįchǫ Agreement will provide the reference point for

exploration and evaluation of the conceptual frameworks. The Tłįchǫ Agreement was chosen

because it represents the “first comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement in the

Northwest Territories (NWT)” (Tłįcho Government 2005). Choosing Northern Aboriginal

communities and the Tłįchǫ Government is important because, as Irlbacher-Fox (p. 6) posits in

the article Governance In Canada's Northwest Territories: Emerging Institutions and

Governance Issues, “effective governments and circumpolar governance require the participation

of indigenous peoples, active involvement in economic development, human and social

Page 3 of 38

development, and inclusive governance”. Selecting a Northern1 Aboriginal2 study area supports

research to curb the encroachment of “governments bent on integrating and assimilating

[Aboriginal people]…” (Chaturvedi 2000). This paper also follows the recent trend in the North

where “the demands of indigenous peoples is for self-government and political

autonomy…”(Nuttall 1992; Chaturvedi 2000; Berger 1988; Minority Rights Group 1994; Nuttall

1998).

The issue of self-determination and self-government will be examined, where self-

government is the cornerstone of Native policy goals in the region (Dickerson 1992 p. 169). By

juxtaposing the concept of internal colonialism in Canada and Northern self-government

agreements, namely the Tłįchǫ Agreement, the question of whether or not the emerging

institutional arrangements bring the Tłįchǫ people closer to political, cultural, economic, and

social self-sufficiency. The research paper will focus on whether or not the emerging institutional

arrangements mitigate the chains of internal colonialism. In support of the overall purpose, the

paper’s organization is framed around examining what is understood by internal colonialism,

self-government, and self-determination. Following this is a case study of the Tłįchǫ Agreement,

outlining the main components and providing a critical analysis.

Internal Colonialism

The approach to defining internal colonialism is based on the evolution of colonialism.

Colonialism, as a general concept, provides the inherent framework for internal colonialism.

Page 4 of 38

1 The term Northern, the North, Arctic, and Circumpolar will be used interchangeable to represent the diversity of usage in the various writings on this geo-political region.

2 For the purpose of this research, Aboriginal, Native, indigenous, and Amerindian will be interchanged. Many authors use different terminology that refers to the same group.

Once a general understanding of colonialism is formed, the discussion will focus on the concept

of internal colonialism, followed by an examination of internal colonialism in a Canadian

Aboriginal context.

Colonization, as defined by Lee (1992 p. 212) is the “subjugation of one people by another

through destruction and/or weakening of basic institutions of the subjugated culture and

replacing them with those of the dominant culture”. According to Horvath (1972), the

domination of the colonizer over the colonized is the “control of individuals or groups over the

territory and/or behaviour of other individuals or groups” taking the form of economic

exploitation, as in the Marxist-Leninist literature, or as a “cultural change process with the idea

of domination closely related to the concept of power”. The ‘cultural change’ process is more

than acculturation: “it is more than just a ‘natural’ process as a result of contact; rather, the

colonizing power carries out a policy in which constrains, transforms, or destroys indigenous

values, orientation, and ways of life” (Blauner 1969).

The process of domination and ‘destruction’ is reaffirmed through the institutions established

by the colonizers. The institutions of the colonizer represent “organizational forms that are not

connected to the experience and culture of the people [and] are at the best irrelevant and at worst

alienating” (Lee 1992). Blauner adds that colonization includes administration domination.

Administrative colonization “involves a relationship by which members of the colonized group

tend to be administered by being managed and manipulated by outsiders in terms of ethnic

status” (Blauner 1969). The definition and basic concept of colonialism provides a foundation

understanding of the core elements. These include a form of domination by one group over

Page 5 of 38

another at the political, cultural, social, and economic spheres through various mechanisms to

achieve the colonizers goals.

With a basic conceptual understanding of colonialism, an outline of internal colonialism can

begin to take shape. In the international sphere, Pablo Gonzalez-Casanova explored internal

colonialism in a Latin American environment. He frames internal colonialism within a structural

relationship:

Internal colonialism corresponds to a structure of social relations based on domination and exploitation among culturally heterogeneous, distinct groups….It is the result of an encounter between two races, cultures, or civilizations, whose genesis and evolution occurred without mutual contact up to one specific moment (Gonzalez-Casanova 1965).

Building upon Gonzalez-Casanova’s definition, van den Berghe provides a systemic labelling of

internal colonialism. Van den Berghe offers another view of internal colonialism based on four

precepts that provides additional insight into the phenomenon in his article Revolutionary

Colonialism:

1. rule of one ethnic group over other groups living within the continuous boundaries of a single state;

2. territorial separation of the subordinate ethnic groups into ‘homelands’, ‘native reserves’ and the like, with land tenure rights distinct from those applicable to members of the dominant group;

3. presence of an internal government within a government especially created to rule the subject peoples, with a special legal ascribed to the subordinate groups; and

4. relations of economic inequality in which subject peoples are relegated to positions of dependency and inferiority in the division of labour and the relations of production (Berghe 1992).

Page 6 of 38

For van den Berghe (1992), “such a definition of internal colonialism excludes mere regional

differences in economic development, mere class differences in the system of production, and, a

fortiori, differences based on age, sex, slave status, caste, sexual behaviour, physical handicaps,

and countless others. The usefulness of the concept to understand the situation of a group is a

function of that group’s approximation to the characteristics of the ideal type.”

While Gonzalez-Casanova offers a broad based assessment of the structure for social

relations, and van de Berghe explores the ‘ideal type’, neither definition examines the notion of

superiority of the colonizer. This seems to be an important element in colonialism and internal

colonialism. In Michael Hechter’s seminal work, Internal Colonialism, he examined internal

colonialism in Britain. His framework of internal colonialism stresses the significance of

superiority, especially ‘cultural superiority’. Hechter (1975 p. 73) states that “one of the defining

characteristics of the colonial situation is that it must involve the interaction of at least two

cultures—that of the conquering metropolitan elite and that of the indigenes—and that the

former, is promulgated by the colonial authorities as being vastly superior for the realization of

universal ends”.

David Walls’s article Internal Colony or Internal Periphery offers an alternative framework

that includes a geographic component. According to Walls (1978), internal colonialism requires

“economic exploitation, a dual class structure based on ethnic differences, with one or more

distinct geographic regions”. While these definitions and conceptual framework provide insight

into internal colonialism, Lovering provides a definition that also addresses the specific

components. According to Lovering (1978), internal colonialism is a concept that has been used

to describe political and economic inequalities, to characterize the uneven effects of state

Page 7 of 38

development on a regional basis, and race relations theory to describe the underprivileged status

and exploitation of minority groups within a wider society. Lovering seems to have captured the

relative elements of each of the definitions of internal colonialism. Lovering provides support for

the domination of the political, economic, social, and cultural components of internal

colonialism.

Internal colonialism in Canada relates to the various incarnations explored elsewhere. It also

possesses some unique features. Based on Gonzalez-Casanova’s framework, there appears to be

strong similarities between the colonial frameworks described in a Latin American context as

there is in an Amerindian experience. In Canada, the contact between Europeans and Aboriginal

people is based on “cultural heterogeneity” and the condition of contact. Van de Berghe’s 4-

conditions of internal colonialism reflect Canadian Aboriginal conditions. The ethnic component,

territoriality separation, internal government, and economic dependency are clearly something

that Aboriginal people in Canada have been exposed. In van de Berghe’s own words, he suggests

that “internal colonialism describes the position of Amerindians quite well” (Berghe 1992). The

key elements in the Canadian context are cultural hegemony and superiority, and political and

economic domination through administrative institutions.

In Canada, the issue of internal colonialism was framed within the context of a ‘problem to

be solved’. The plight of Aboriginal people was referred to as the object of policy options—and

solutions. Fleras and Elliott (1992 p. 39) contend that “the perception of Aboriginal peoples as a

‘problem’ to be solved constitutes a central motif in the evolution of government Aboriginal

policy and administration” in Canada. More than this, though, the ‘problem’ was framed within

the colonial context. This, of course, was not always the case. Pre-confederation relations

Page 8 of 38

between Aboriginal and Europeans was based on cooperation and mutual benefits based on a

principle of coexistence that involved trade, commercial partnerships and practical

accommodation (Fleras and Elliott 1992 p. 40).. Over time, however, the partnership and

practical accommodation shifted to ‘solving the Aboriginal problem’. As a result, successive

Canadian governments began to approach Aboriginal people with an evolutionary tone to policy.

The evolutionary nature of policy formulation in Canada towards Aboriginal people ranged from

assimilation, integration, and equality.

In The 'Nations Within': Aboriginal-State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New

Zealand, Fleras and Elliott, outline various stages of Aboriginal colonialism since Confederation.

In order to address the ‘Aboriginal problem’ in Canada, governments have employed different

strategies during different stages of Canadian development. The strategies for attainment of the

‘Aboriginal problem’ have varied, ranging from a commitment to assimilation by way of

segregation, wardship, and protection between 1867-1945, through to an era of integration and

formal equality encompassing the post-war era to 1973. A preference for limited Aboriginal

autonomy has been in place since 1973, based in part on federal responses to Aboriginal

demands for self-determination across a broad range of political and economic fronts (Fleras and

Elliott 1992).

From 1867-1945 “reciprocity and accommodation was replaced by a system of internal

colonialism and conquest-oriented acculturation, reflecting the need for (a) political control over

Aboriginal populations, (b) protection of British and French interests, and (c) removal of

competition for scare resources (Fleras and Elliott 1992). This approach to internal colonialism

was to subjugate Aboriginal people to an outside government authority, removing their economic

Page 9 of 38

self-sufficiency (leading to economic dependency), and the imposition of cultural hegemony.

More importantly, Aboriginals were not colonized in the same way as other groups: colonialism

implies that the colonial power receives some economic gain from the exploitation of the

colonized peoples (Franks 1987). Government policy on the other hand was to remove

Aboriginal people from the economic machinery—“the removal of competition for scarce

resources”.

The second phase of Aboriginal colonialism in Canada was from 1945-73. During this phase

assimilation gave way to the principles of integration and formal equality as successive

governments sought to redefine their responsibilities to Aboriginal peoples (Fleras and Elliott

1992 p. 43). Integration was based on “rejecting the principles of wardship and control” (Boldt

1993) where government sought to encourage “self-sufficiency to facilitate Aboriginal entry into

the outside world” (Fleras and Elliott 1992). Limited Aboriginal autonomy has replaced

assimilation and integration. Limited Aboriginal autonomy consists of restructuring Aboriginal-

state relations along the lines of self-government while the other component concerns

recognition of Aboriginal land claims and treaty rights (Fleras and Elliott 1992 p. 52).

Fleras and Elliott’s assessment of internal colonialism or ‘Aboriginal colonialism’ in Canada

is entrenched in Canadian policy. Internal colonialism for Aboriginal people in Canada arises

from a structural relation as opposed to a psychological dependence (Young 1993). Historically,

Aboriginal people in Canada, have been “excluded from almost all forms of meaningful

participation in the governance of their own communities” (Lee 1992). This is changing, though.

According to Fleras and Elliott (1992), there is a new paradigm merging based on the

“decolonization of the Aboriginal agenda”. The new paradigm is a policy of self-government.

Page 10 of 38

Aboriginal Self-Government

Self-government and the agreements serve as a symbol heralding the end of colonization

(Fleras and Elliott 1992 p. 28). Self-government has different connotations, however. It depends

on what side of the debate the framework is applied. In Canada, the federal government has a

framework for self-government and its applied mechanisms whereas Aboriginal people have a

different outline for implementation. Whatever the debates over self-government, the foundation

for the discourse is with the restructuring of Aboriginal status in society.

The first step in the process of self-government is providing a definition of the concept. The

premise supporting the notion of self-government is seen as a “necessary step in the development

and maintenance of political, economic, and cultural security” (Patterson 1976) . The bottom line

is power: the concept of self-government implies Aboriginal rather than external authority over

jurisdictions and institutions of relevance to Aboriginal peoples (Fleras and Elliott 1992 p. 24).

Self-government, then, refers to Aboriginal power to ensure political, economic, and cultural

security.

Self-determination is inherently linked to self-government. The concept of self-determination

implies some form of government effectively controlled by Aboriginal people (Dacks 1981). In

its simplest form, “the principle of self-determination means simply that peoples (by whatever

definition) should be allowed to determine, without external pressure, their own political future

“ (Patterson 1976). Self-determination refers to the right, and the ability, to choose freely about

the extent, and the forms, structures and processes, of conducting governmental activities (Wolfe

1991 p. 129). What Native people are seeking is not a lot more than what many subjects in this

country prior to Confederation were seeking (Dickerson 1992).

Page 11 of 38

Aboriginal claims “must be seen as a fundamental re-ordering of their relationship…a social

contract based on a clear understanding that they are distinct people in history…to determine

their own future, to ensure their place, but not to assimilation, in Canadian life” (Berger 1988).

Self-government and self-determination is the proposed ‘social contract’ with terms of

governance, management, and administration. Accordingly, self-government exists when people

have effective control over their governments, and when they have, to a considerable measure,

determined its structures and mechanism so that they can direct its business as a means of

furthering group goals and meeting group needs (Wolfe 1991). Self-government offers a

“measure of meaningful control over the many features of their lives” (Dacks 1981; Franks

1987). On both accounts, self-government and self-determination, Canadian governments and

Aboriginal peoples have differing opinions.

Before considering self-government and self-determination from both the government and

Aboriginal groups perspectives, it is imperative to understand that “proposals for self-

government advanced by Aboriginal people vary substantially, as do the expectations of the

Aboriginal organizations and governments at the negotiating table” (Hawkes 1985). While the

frameworks put forward provide a general guideline, the specifics of the final agreements

between government and Aboriginal people vary.

Beginning with the government of Canada’s framework for self-government, Wolfe’s article

Canada: Current Developments in Aboriginal Self-Government provides a succinct perspective.

According to Wolfe (1991 p. 130) the Government of Canada’s position on self-government and

self-determination is as follows:

Page 12 of 38

Self-government, self-determination in upper tiers of government and bureaucrats use it convey to Aboriginal communities the notion that ‘you may exercise government or management over those things which we decide are appropriate and for which we consider you have the capability, using those structures and ways we consider from our experience will work best, and which fit within our system.

Government views of self-government and self-determination are founded on a form of

municipal governance where powers and authority is delegated from a higher level of

government. This form of self-government is in direct conflict with Aboriginal forms. Aboriginal

self-government demands a “unique and distinct order of government alongside federal and

provincial levels, with corresponding control over matters of relevance to Aboriginal

communities” (Fleras and Elliott 1992). The notion of self-government is “a historical and moral

imperative to redress wrongs and to re-establish governments which have never lost their

authenticity” (Wolfe 1991). While Aboriginal groups advocate a distinct third level of self-

government, equivalent in status to that of provinces, Ottawa offers a limited degree of autonomy

(Comeau and Santin 1990).

A framework for Aboriginal self-government is based on jurisdiction and governing

functions over institutions, culture, economic development, and resources. To achieve their goal

of self-government and control over governing functions, the principal instrument for the

Aboriginal population is the negotiation of a Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (CLCAs).

CLCAs reflect both economic and political development issues: they are a new relationship that

removes the federal paternalism by providing control over Aboriginal peoples’ future through

local economic development and self-government (Saku and Bone 2000). Under these new

arrangements, regional political empowerment is evolving; it is challenging the hegemonic

political domination. Each comprehensive land claim agreement, however, has unique features,

Page 13 of 38

reflecting the priorities of the various Aboriginal groups, the specific context of the individual

negotiations and the precedents established in previous claims agreements (Cameron and White

1995). Key to self-government and claim settlements is to ensure a comprehensive support

system, including a political structure and economic base with sufficient capital to finance their

aspirations.

In order to place CLCAs in perspective, it is necessary provide a workable framework. Fleras

and Elliott offer a general pattern in function and jurisdiction of Aboriginal self-government

within a CLCA. The overall function of self-government would be to promote (a) greater self-

determination and social justice, (b) economic development, (c) protection of Aboriginal

language, culture, and identity, and (d) development of the social vigour required to deal with

health, housing, alienation, and empowerment (Fleras and Elliott 1992).

At the jurisdictional level, authority would involve a wide-range of issues. Jurisdiction

authority is expected to include (a) control over the delivery of social services, ‘institutional

autonomy’; (b) control over resources and use of land for economic regeneration; (c) control

over means to protect and promote distinct cultural values and languages; (d) control over

membership and entitlements; (e) control over federal expenditures according to Aboriginal

priorities rather than those of the government or bureaucracy (Fleras and Elliott 1992 p. 25-6).

Supporting the jurisdiction and function of self-government is a proposed model by Hawkes

in Aboriginal Self-Government: What Does It Mean? Hawkes proposes an Aboriginal self-

government cube that has three elements. The three elements are whether the government is

public or ethnic based; whether the government is local, regional, or national in scope; and the

Page 14 of 38

degree of power exercised by the government (Hawkes 1985). He further delineates the model

into the distribution of powers, leading to autonomy or dependency, and the type of powers

exercised—whether they are legislative, administrative, or a combination of both (Hawkes

1985).

While it is important in determining whether an Aboriginal government is public or ethnic,

whether the jurisdiction is national, regional, or community it is clear that the level of autonomy

and powers provide the quintessential element. According to Hawkes (1985), there are three self-

government scenarios with varying degrees of autonomy and power:

1. Autonomous/Legislative Powers: Significant autonomy in decision making, namely legislative powers. Financial resources from its own revenue-raising or transfer payments negotiated with other levels of government;

2. Semi-Autonomous/Mixed Powers: Narrower range of legislative powers with some powers recognized by other levels of government;

3. Dependent/Administrative Powers: No legislative powers, only administrative powers of services implementation/delivery through conditional grants.

The concepts of internal colonialism, self- government and determination, and the framework

to achieving Aboriginal goals provide a backdrop to bridging the divide within a Northern

context. The next section provides a transition for understanding the concepts and framework

presented in this section within a Northern environment.

Bridging Internal Colonialism and Self-Government in a Northern Context

The history of Canada and its Northern territories, especially, Aboriginal people of the North

is based on a struggle against colonialism and self-government. Canada’s North is considered a

part of the “Fourth World”: it is a region inhabited by indigenous minorities located in a country

Page 15 of 38

dominated by a majority with a different ethnic and cultural composition, values, and needs

(Saku 1995 p. 89). There is a disjunction between these two sets of interests (Lusthaus, Adrien,

and Perstinger 1999b). In the NWT the political system and institutions are not indigenous, and

they do not reflect the traditional values and political process of the Aboriginal people (Pretes

1988). The North remains a colony of the federal state, and Northern Aboriginals suffer from the

consequence of the imposition of an external power and the institutionalization of powerlessness.

Politically, the North has not had the full range of self-governing institutions that the

provinces enjoy, and the central government in Ottawa guides their destiny to a degree

unparalleled elsewhere in Canada (Usher 1982). The North’s relationship with the federal

government is based on weakness and dependence. The North is colonial to the extent that major

decisions affecting it are made outside of it. That is, the North is totally dependent

constitutionally on Ottawa (Dacks 1981 p. 208).

The Government of Canada has pursued an approach of colonial domination through the

bureaucracy and administration of governing Northern Aboriginal people. According to Ponting

and Gibbins (1980), political power and administrative responsibility remains with the federal

government and the administrative apparatus remains largely in the hands of, and controlled by,

non-natives. The federal government has imposed its views, policies, and assumption on the

region, attempting to make the Canadian North a reflection of Canadian aspirations (Abel and

Coates 2001). Federal policy regarding Aboriginal peoples has historically been defined by a

commitment to protect, assimilate, and civilize those wards of the state under federal custody…

giving rise to a federal bureaucracy whose mandate extends to control and domination (Fleras

and Elliott 1992 p. 55). Through federal government programs and the increasing influence of

Page 16 of 38

the federal administrative apparatus on Aboriginal communities and individuals, the end result is

a system of neither self-government nor self-administration (Franks 1987). Aboriginal political

organization and governance was “superimposed by a system other than their own” (Fumolea

2004). This cannot be any clearer than with the creation of the Government of the Northwest

Territories (GNWT). The Government of Canada “felt that the inhabitants of the area were too

few and, being largely unsophisticated in a political sense, were not ready to make any

judgement concerning this matter” (Coates and Powell 1989).

Even with recent important steps towards regional autonomy, Northerners remain subject to

Ottawa’s control (Abel and Coates 2001). While the federal government devolves powers to the

GNWT, “many Native people feel they are still battling the same kind of centralized decision-

making authority that has existed for decades under the federal government” (Dickerson 1992).

Although Northern governance has progressed, there remains a sense of distance and uncaring

government (Watkins 1977). The political evolution of the North along the territorial

government lines continues to support colonial governance for Aboriginal people. This is

especially evident at the bureaucratic level. The shift from the federal government to the GNWT

is only a shift in administration: the bureaucracy is viewed as “essentially a southern-Canadian

style government run along non-Aboriginal lines” (Cameron and White 1995). Cameron and

White (1995) further assert that the administration “remains alien, a colonial institution which

operates with no participation by Aboriginal people and no support from them”. The NWT as a

geo-political jurisdiction simply does not inspire a natural sense of identity amongst many of its

indigenous peoples; its government does not enjoy in the most fundamental sense the

Page 17 of 38

uncompromising loyalty and commitment of significant numbers of those who are now subject

to it (Coates and Powell 1989).

Prior to bridging the concept of self-government in its application in the North, it is important

to provide a synopsis on Northern colonialism. The process of internal colonialism in Northern

Canada in broad terms can be outlined as follows. First, the federal government established

Canadian state power over the North. This involved the purchasing of Hudson’s Bay Company’s

monopoly charter in 1870. Assuming control over the North meant that the Canadian government

created the coercive apparatus over the territory. To this end, the North West Mounted Police was

formed in 1873 with the primary task of defending the colonization process and controlling the

Aboriginal populations (Phillips 1982 p. 5).

The NWT Act of 1875 established Dominion authority over the entire region. Unlike other

provinces, control over the public lands and resources was “vested with the Crown, and

administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion” (Conway 1983 p.

18-19). Finally, the North was marked by the establishment of administrative colonialism by the

Canadian government that led to a “peculiar form of government totalitarianism, in which

virtually no facet of Aboriginal life is permitted to remain uninfluenced by the state” (Usher

1982). As a result, there “was a loss of self-government, a loss of capacity to make or even

influence the decisions that affected the individual or collective destiny “(Franks 1987 p. 18). In

the end, Northern needs were identified by the government and responded to by government:

they were perceived and implemented in accordance with the views of southern Canada (Usher

1982). That is, “few thought to find out how Aboriginal people really lived or what they really

wanted, much less to heed what Aboriginal people actually said” (Usher 1982). Moreover, since

Page 18 of 38

much of the post-war period, the dominated government thinking was “the perpetuation of the

long-standing non-Aboriginal and southern assumption that Aboriginal people could be aided

only by speeding their integration into the mainstream Canadian society” (Coates and Powell

1989).

Northern Aboriginals have a growing political consciousness, particularly concerning the

question of control over land, resources, and political institutions (Usher 1982). Aboriginal

sectors want a decolonization of their relationship with the state, with access to the tools required

for charting a new course based on freedom and self-determination in political, economic, and

cultural matters (Fleras and Elliott 1992 p.6). The Aboriginal population in the North have

“consistently demanded the instruments of power that would allow them to maintain, to a

considerable degree, a separate and distinctive social, cultural, and economic identity in

Canadian society” (Usher 1982).

For Northern Aboriginal groups, the development process is neither the internal colonial

model of federal government paternalism nor territorial provincial-like powers. Rather than

accept territorial or federal authority, Northern Aboriginal groups are demanding “a distinct third

order of government alongside federal and provincial government authorities” (Fleras and Elliott

1992). This third order of government is broadly referred to as Aboriginal self-government. For

Northern Aboriginal people, the issue is power and control. Self-governing powers are the key to

constructing a legitimate political system in the NWT—a system in which there is an accord

between political values and structures, and a system to which Native people can consent

(Dickerson 1992).

Page 19 of 38

For the Dene of the North, self-determination means (1) the values and recognition of

cultural worthiness, (2) cultural growth and preservation, (3) evolution of culture by controlling

factors that affect its viability, and (4) the people have a meaningful legislative authority,

normally accruing to either the federal or territorial governments (Dacks 1981). For indigenous

peoples of the Arctic, self-determination is the right to live a particular way of life, to practise a

specific culture or religion, to use their own languages, and the ability to determine the future

course of economic development (Nuttall 2000). Self-determination for Northern Aboriginals

translated into political arrangements would mean “the creation of large political units in which

the Dene3 exercise substantial control over the course of economic and political development

through their own political institutions” (Usher 1982).

The issue of Northern Aboriginal self-government has been contentious for both the federal

and territorial governments. In order address the question of Aboriginal political determination

and governance, two inquiries were established to deal with Northern political development. In

1966 the Carrothers Advisory Commission on the Development of Government in the Northwest

Territories investigate the development of governance capacity in the NWT. The Carrothers

Commission proceeded from an assumption that government in the NWT would and should be

entirely public; in other words, that it should exercise authority over all NWT residents

(Cameron and White 1995). It did not contemplate any degree of Aboriginal self-government

(Cameron and White 1995). According to Kerry Abel (1993 p. 244), in Drum Songs: Glimpses of

Dene History, the Carrothers Commission “was clearly a white man’s commission appointed to

investigate the white man’s grievances”. The issue was again revisited in 1980. The Drury

Page 20 of 38

3 Dene refers to Northern Aboriginal people in the NWT. The Dogrib people are considered Dene.

Report, submitted in 1980, suggesting that Aboriginal concerns were not well handled within

existing arrangement. Drury also argued that the potential of local government “can provide for a

measure of the self-government which Aboriginal people seek, but within the framework of a

single territorial government” (Coates and Powell 1989 p. 73). Again, however, the issue of self-

government was limited to a form of municipal governance and not the framework of

governance demanded by the Dene.

What Native people in the NWT want today is the same as colonists wanted: a more

decentralized, autonomous process of government, in which local citizens have control over the

decision-making process which deals with problems at the local level (Dickerson 1992). The first

declaration of a ‘third’ order of government by Northern Aboriginals comes from the 1975 Dene

Declaration. The Dene Declaration reified their demands for recognition and the need for a new

order of governance:

We the Dene of the Northwest Territories insist on the right to be regarded by ourselves and the world as a nation. Our struggle is for the recognition of the Dene Nation by the government and peoples of Canada and the peoples and governments of the world….

The Dene find themselves as part of a country. That country is Canada. But the Government of Canada is not the Government of the Dene. The Government of the Northwest Territories is not the Government of the Dene. These governments were not the choice of the Dene; they were imposed upon the Dene.

What we the Dene are struggling for is the recognition of the Dene nation by the governments and peoples of the world.

And while there are realities we are forced to submit to, such as the existence of a country called Canada, we insist on the right to self-determination as a distinct people and the recognition of the Dene Nation….

What we seek then is independence and self-determination within the country of Canada. This is what we mean when we call for a just land settlement for the Dene nation (Watkins 1977).

Page 21 of 38

For the Dene, the issue is power and control. The 1975 Dene Declaration represents a

reaffirmation of the demands for a “third” order of government with all the power and control

necessary to achieve their goals of self-determination. The goals of self-government appear to be

supported by the international community. The World Health Organization (WHO) asserts that

control is the issue facing Northern Aboriginal peoples where “in the broadest sense control

involves having the collective right to decide how to live under the new conditions in the

circumpolar regions” (WHO 1985). Self-government is an essential part of re-establishing

authentic control (Franks 1987).

Case Study: Tłįchǫ Agreement

The case study of colonialism and self-government refers to the Tłįchǫ Agreement. The

Tłįchǫ Agreement is the land claims and self-government agreement between the Tłįchǫ people

of the NWT, the GNWT, and the Government of Canada (Canada 2003).

The Tłįchǫ Agreement is based on the 1921 Treaty 11 between the Dogrib people and the

Government of Canada. Treaty 11 was a “peace treaty between sovereign nations that gave up

neither ownership of the land nor the Dene’s right to govern themselves” (Cameron and White

1995). Under the Treaty, the Dene have never accepted the federal government’s position that the

Treaty served to extinguish Aboriginal rights to Aboriginal title” (Coates and Powell 1989 p.

107). The Government of Canada, by contrast, interpreted the treaty as extinguishing Aboriginal

title and acknowledging the Dene’s acceptance of Canadian government (Cameron and White

1995). In time, however, the government recognized that it was important to negotiate modern

treaties called comprehensive land claims agreements (CLCAs).

Page 22 of 38

The Tłįchǫ Agreement is the first combined land claim and self-government agreement in the

territories (Tłįcho Government 2005). According to Tłįchǫ Government, “unlike the 1921 Treaty,

the Agreement will give certainty for all Tłįchǫ Citizens, the GNWT and Canada (Monem 2003).

The Tłįchǫ Agreement was negotiated and signed “in order to define and provide certainty in

respect of rights of the Tłįchǫ relating to land, resource, and self-government (Canada 2003).

Under the agreement, the newly formed Tłįchǫ Government becomes the government for the

Tłįchǫ, replacing the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council and four Indian Act Band governments.

The remainder of the case study will focus on specifics of the Agreement; namely, the main

components and provide a summary of the proposed goals. Finally, a critical analysis of the

agreement will be conducted, based on the provisions in relation to the concept of colonialism

and self-government. That is, does the agreement move the Tłįchǫ along the spectrum away from

colonialism and towards greater self-government and determination?

Tłįchǫ Agreement Analysis

The Tłįchǫ Agreement asserts that the Tłįchǫ Government will be responsible for matters

related to their membership, culture, language, and communities. According to the Tłįchǫ

Government (2005), “through the Agreement, the Tłįchǫ will gain additional tools and resources

to strengthen their economy, and a greater ability to protect and promote Tłįchǫ culture,

language, heritage, lands and resources”. The Tłįchǫ Agreement encapsulates key areas

including governance—at the community and regional level—lands, Citizenship, resources—

natural and financial—culture and heritage, and economic development. While there are several

areas—wildlife harvesting, and management of wildlife, water, forest management, and

Page 23 of 38

protected areas—that the Tłįchǫ Agreement covers, these areas are traditionally represented in all

CLCAs. In general, as with other Agreements, the Tłįchǫ Agreement, is based on a shared

management approach with the respective governments in decisions and management. It is for

this reason that these components of the Agreement are not discussed further in this analysis.

Citizenship:

Citizenship is a key component in governance, self-governance. Only the national

government in Canada can dictate who is a Citizenship of the country. For the Tłįchǫ

Government, they have limited jurisdiction over Citizenship. Decisions regarding Tłįchǫ

Citizenship are, in part, shared between the Government of Canada and the Tłįchǫ Government.

In other words, in order to be a Tłįchǫ Citizen a person must meet the Canadian Citizenship

requirements and guidelines set out in Chapter 3, Section 3.1 Eligibility Criteria. While this is a

shared responsibility, the Tłįchǫ Government is favoured on the Eligibility Committee and

Registrar by a 2-1 ratio of members for decisions and appeals. Although the Tłįchǫ Government

does not have sole jurisdiction, they retain a strong presence in controlling Citizenship and, by

extension, cultural promotion, and preservation.

Governance:

The Tłįchǫ government suggests that under the Agreement’s self-government provisions, the

Tłįchǫ will acquire new governance arrangements and powers (Tłįcho Government 2005).

Chapters 7 and 8 outline the provisions of the Tłįchǫ Government and Tłįchǫ Community

Governments, respectively.

Page 24 of 38

The Tłįchǫ will have a Constitution that sets out the structure of the government, describes

its main roles and responsibilities of officials, and sets the rules for elections (Monem 2003). The

Constitution, however, is limited: Section 7.1.4 states that any conflict between the Constitution

and the Agreement, the Agreement prevails (Canada 2003). Moreover, Tłįchǫ Government does

not have legal status as a government; rather, according to Section 7.2.1, “it is a legal entity with

legal capacity of a natural person” (Canada 2003 p. 60).

While the Tłįchǫ Government is not recognized as another level of government, Section 7.4

of the Tłįchǫ Agreement provides for law making powers for the Tłįchǫ Government. The law-

making powers cover a broad range of responsibilities, including, laws to deal with the structure

of the government and its internal management; management rights under the Agreement; land

use, management, and administration; harvesting; protection and promotion of spiritual and

cultural practices and beliefs. The use of the Tłįchǫ language in government operations;

traditional medicine, and training of Tłįchǫ Citizens by the Tłįchǫ Government is also included.

In addition to these lawmaking powers, other key powers including lawmaking authority over

social assistance, child and family services, guardianship, adoptions, primary education, pre-

school and child development programs, wills, language and culture teaching certificates,

marriages, and taxation matters. The Tłįchǫ Government it also has the power to enforce its own

laws.

The lawmaking powers of the Tłįchǫ Government is a mixture of municipal and provincial

lawmaking powers. This is important because it is the first step in moving towards self-

government—a break from the colonial past. It is a movement towards “institutional autonomy”.

Page 25 of 38

Section 7.4 of the Tłįchǫ Agreement moves self-government to the next level. This is important

because it means that no longer is the Tłįchǫ subject to the Government of Canada’s Indian Act,

a link to the colonial past. The limits of the Tłįchǫ Government lawmaking powers relate to

federal powers of pensions, insurance, welfare, criminal law, and collecting taxes. At the

territorial level, the GNWT remains responsible for health care, primary education, housing, and

enforcing criminal law. According to Section 7.7.1 “unless otherwise provided in the Agreement,

the powers of the Tłįchǫ Government to enact laws are concurrent with those of the Canadian

government” the government of Canada laws prevail (Canada 2003). When the law conflicts

with the GNWT legislation, “the Tłįchǫ law prevails to the extent of the conflict” (Canada

2003).

The new Tłįchǫ Government appears to be a hybrid version of a regional government that is

both public and ethnic. An ethnic government is a “rather autonomous government with

significant legislative powers existing where one nation or tribe or Aboriginal peoples has either

a large integrated land base, or parcels of land within a particular region” (Hawkes 1985). The

Tłįchǫ Agreement contains a substantial land based. A public government is one where

Aboriginal people comprise a majority of the population, with significant powers and a large

degree of autonomy” (Hawkes 1985).

The Agreement guarantees Tłįchǫ representation in the new Tłįchǫ community public

governments to ensure their interests and culture are reflected (Tłįcho Government 2005). At the

community level, Tłįchǫ Community Governments will have the power to pass laws relating to

managing community lands, local day care, training and economic development, housing for

Page 26 of 38

residents, local roads and transportation, and intoxicants (Monem 2003). The unique element of

the community government is that, according to Section 8.2.3 and 8.2.7, a non- Tłįchǫ Citizen

can participate in elections and run for office (Canada 2003). The caveat, however, is that ‘no

more half of the council seats must be filled by candidates who are not Tłįchǫ Citizens” (Canada

2003). At the regional level, however, all representatives must be Tłįchǫ Citizens. The

governance model is semi-public at the local level and ethnic at the regional level.

Dispute Resolutions:

Key to self-government, especially, between the jurisdictions of the GNWT, Tłįchǫ

government, and Government of Canada is a dispute resolution mechanism. Chapter 6 outlines

the approach to dispute resolutions. The general provision for resolving disputes centres on

discussion, mediation, and arbitration. According to Chapter 6, Section 6.1 disputes relating to

the Tłįchǫ Agreement, interpretation, or other intergovernmental agreements “should” be

resolved through “discussion and by mediation” (Canada 2003). While the Tłįchǫ Government

is an equal party in selecting the “administrator”, “arbitrator”, or “mediator”, it is clear that if no

agreement can be reached between the parties, a ‘judge of the Supreme Court of the Northwest

Territories’ will be appointed based on provision 6.2.2. Although the Tłįchǫ Government does

not retain sole jurisdiction, there is a process of joint or concurrent jurisdiction in the dispute

process. It is clear, however, that the higher power is the GNWT system of governance because

of the ability to use the Supreme Court Judge as the final “administrator” of any disputes relating

to the agreement.

Page 27 of 38

Lands, Subsurface Rights, and Royalties:

Under Chapter 18, Section 18.1.1 and Section 18.7.2, and Chapter 25 the Tłįchǫ

Government will own approximately 39,000 square kilometres of land, including, subsurface

rights and mineral royalties (Canada 2003). The Tłįchǫ Agreement applies a new approach to

achieving certainty with respect to the use and ownership of land and resources, and to the

jurisdictional rights provided in the Tłįchǫ Agreement (Tłįcho Government 2005). Section

18.1.11 opens up the opportunity for the Tłįchǫ Government to control land use and Section

18.7.2 guarantees ‘rents’ from leases paid to the federal government. The key element of land

leases is that it is the Tłįchǫ Government who grants the access rights and not the Government of

Canada.

Chapter 23 outlines the provisions for subsurface resources. While this chapter supports the

Tłįchǫ Government’s assertion to subsurface resources, the only caveat to any activity for

development is that they “shall be consulted” to ensure Tłįchǫ interests are protected. This

includes environmental, wildlife, and benefit impacts of the proposed project. In other words, the

Tłįchǫ Government retains limited influence and authority in this area; it remains with either the

federal or the territorial government. At the same time, there are other avenues to explore in this

area such as the Mackenzie Valley Water Board.

Mineral royalties provide ongoing ‘rents’ on Tłįchǫ lands. Provision 25.1.1. (a)(b) ensures

that the Tłįchǫ Government receives a share of mineral royalties collected from mining activities

in the Mackenzie Valley (Monem 2003). The share of the mineral royalties is a part of the

negotiated settlement of the Tłįchǫ Agreement. The mineral royalties while not based on the

Page 28 of 38

decisions of Tłįchǫ Government legislation, by having the rates entrenched in the Agreement,

they maintain a level of control of funding from activities in their region.

Financial Payments:

Financing the Tłįchǫ Government is a crucial element of self-government. Without the

resources to manage and administer government activities, the Tłįchǫ Government retains no

sense of independence. While Chapter 24 outlines the ‘capital payments’ to the Tłįchǫ

Government, ongoing financing in Chapter 7 under the Intergovernmental Services Agreement

(ISA), Section 7.10 is to provide for long term financial support.

For the first ten years after the Tłįchǫ Agreement is in effect, an Intergovernmental Services

Agreement between the Tłįchǫ, the GNWT, and the Government of Canada would provide for

the administration and delivery of key programs and services in each of the four Tłįchǫ

communities (Tłįcho Government 2005). The financial agreement also provides ‘fixed level

resources’ for the operation of the Tłįchǫ Government. Key to this provision is that the Tłįchǫ

Government recognizes that they are striving to generate sufficient revenue sources to gradually

become self-sufficient in its operations. Key in this area is that the Tłįchǫ Government will retain

the decision-making of the funding received—and not the other levels of government.

The ISA ensures that Tłįchǫ Government is guaranteed funding at the same level of services

and programs as all other citizens of the NWT. At the same time, however, the GNWT and

Government of Canada hold the purse strings in determining the ‘adequate’ levels of funding for

services and programs. At the end of the 10-year period, the Tłįchǫ Government “can decide if it

wants to run these programs and services itself. If so, the Tłįchǫ Government can negotiate with

Page 29 of 38

Canada and the GNWT about how these programs and services will be paid for” (Monem 2003).

Analogous to provincial and federal fiscal relations and certain programs, one level of

government can chose to either delivery or not delivery certain programs. This is no different.

What is different, however, is that, while Tłįchǫ Government may set standards for programs and

services, it requires these standards to be compatible with the ‘core principles and objectives’

established by the GNWT. Section 7.5.5 vests the GNWT with broad authority to development

and amend ‘core’ principles and objectives for ‘social assistance, social housing, child and family

services, guardianship, trusteeship of adults, and pre-schooling and early childhood

development’ (Canada 2003). Tłįchǫ Government consent is not required for these principles and

objectives.

Economic Measures:

Chapter 26 is designed to ensure that “Canada and the GNWT will act to promote the

economic interests of the Tłįchǫ, including support for the traditional economy, development of

business, and the creation of new jobs and training programs” (Canada 2003). It is expected that

the Tłįchǫ Agreement will create a climate that will encourage economic investment and

partnerships (Tłįcho Government 2005).

Chapter 26 confers preferential contracting and procurement by the GNWT and Canada,

creating a climate that will encourage investment and partnerships with Tłįchǫ businesses.

Moreover, the Agreement, Section 26.2.1 guarantees the Tłįchǫ Government with an endowment

fund for new training of Tłįchǫ Citizens (Canada 2003). This fund allows the Tłįchǫ Government

to design and development training programs based on Tłįchǫ priorities.

Page 30 of 38

Heritage Resources:

The Tłįchǫ Government has a duty to protect and support the Tłįchǫ heritage, language, and

culture (Monem 2003). Chapter 17 outlines the approaches to preserve the Tłįchǫ heritage,

language, and culture. Key to heritage resources is provision 17.2.1 which grants Tłįchǫ

Government custodial authority over these resources.

In the broader picture of the Tłįchǫ Agreement within each Chapter, the spirit and intent, is

designed such that the “Tłįchǫ Government will be consulted on all matters that affect culture,

language, and heritage” of the Tłįchǫ people. While the Tłįchǫ Government does not have sole

jurisdiction in some cases (i.e. GNWT programs), they must be consulted and, in some cases, do

have the ability to appeal decisions by Canada or the GNWT. Concurrently, the Tłįchǫ

Government (2005) believes that “by designing and managing programs through agreements

with territorial and federal governments, the Tłįchǫ Government will be able to respect and

promote Tłįchǫ way of life”.

The Tłįchǫ people have used the method of treaties for establishing Aboriginal self-

determination. While not constitutionally entrenched, the agreement provides for a limited

“third” order of government, self-government charter, and the right of self-government. The

agreement also allows for recognition of powers, legislation, intergovernmental agreements, and

administrative arrangements with the federal and territorial governments.

The future of the Tłįchǫ remains the ability of its leaders to commit to building effective

government, empowering their communities, and realizing their goal for self-determination. For

self-determination to become an operational reality, several elements are clear: it is important to

Page 31 of 38

recognize and understand the links between governments, environment, and economy.

Leadership at all levels in the Tłįchǫ Government must identify and develop policies that

promote self-determination. Inequalities in access to developmental services and programs are

especially salient for remote and isolated communities—the majority of NWT communities. The

need for and facilitation of government practices for development and sustainability must be

recognized and actioned.

Conclusions

The increased awareness of indigenous peoples in the North reflects the growth in Aboriginal

self-determination that is changing the political map. Northern political domination and

governance are changing and shifting: they no longer fit within the context of a territorial or

federal bureaucratic framework. Northern Aboriginal people are assuming an every increasing

political role through various agreements and devolution. Political domination and Northern

colonialism is being challenged: self-determination and self-government agreements are

changing the political landscape. There is an increase in regional political authority through

CLCAs. Aboriginal Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements and their ability to determine the

direction of the geo-political landscape is becoming a very real and a powerful influence on the

establishment and implementation of both territorial and federal government policy-making

initiatives. Under these new arrangements, regional political empowerment is evolving,

challenging the hegemonic political domination.

This conceptual paper focussed on identifying and establishing a definition and framework of

internal colonialism that included the essential ingredients of self-determination through self-

government agreements. Incorporating self-government expanded the notion of self-

Page 32 of 38

determination, broadening the application and inclusion of the many facets that are important for

Northern Aboriginal people to begin the path of self-determination. Self-government is a process

that is as distinctive in nature as each Aboriginal group that are pursuing self-determination.

Recognizing this element of self-determination makes it clear for the need to identify the unique

and challenging characteristics to self-government.

The Tłįchǫ Government and Agreement includes self-government. While it may not be a

‘third order’ of government in the strictest form, there are elements of cross-jurisdiction

authority. More importantly, the Agreement allows for greater control over policies and

legislation affecting the Tłįchǫ people—there is greater political empowerment and control over

their future.

Several key themes represent a new direction for the future of Tłįchǫ self-government and

determination. Control over membership and entitlements are an important element that, while

shared with the federal government, the Tłįchǫ Government has significant influence and

determination of these rights as a Tłįchǫ Citizen. Aboriginal culture, language, and identity are a

key responsibility that lies with the Tłįchǫ Government, including policy making and legislation

authority. In addition, the Tłįchǫ Government has additional resources such as mineral rights

potential, royalties, and funding arrangements with the federal and territorial governments to

ensure long-term sustainability of government operations and program delivery.

The resources beholden to the Tłįchǫ Government mean that economic development has the

potential to be successful. While not completely within their own devises, the federal and

territorial governments will play a role—a supportive role. Programs and services according

Page 33 of 38

other residents of the NWT will be extended to the Tłįchǫ people. The Tłįchǫ Agreement is not a

complete break from outside government control and influence but it is a step in the right

direction to gain control of their lives, communities, and political path. The Agreement is a

movement away from colonialism and closer to “institutional autonomy”, with mixed powers of

authority, with a semi-public form of governance in the region.

Page 34 of 38

Works Cited

Abel, Kerry. 1993. Drum Songs: Glimpses of Dene History. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Abel, Kerry, and Ken S. Coates. 2001. The North and the Nation. In Northern Visions: New Perspectives On the North In Canadian History, edited by K. Abel and K. S. Coates. Peterborough: Broadview Press Ltd.

Berger, Thomas. 1988. Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Revised ed: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.

Berghe, Pierre van den. 1992. Education, Class and Ethnicity in Southern Peru: Revolutionary Colonialism. In Education and Colonialism, edited by P. G. Altbach and G. P. Kelly. New York: Stosius Inc an Advent Books Division.

Blauner, Robert. 1969. Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt. Social Problems 16 (4):393–408.

Boldt, M. 1993. Surviving as Indians: The Challenge of Self-Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Cameron, Kirk, and Graham White. 1995. Northern Governments in Transition: Political and Constitutional Development in the Yukon, Nunavut, and the Western Northwest Territories. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Canada. 2003. Tłįcho Agreement, edited by DIAND: Queen's Printer for Canada.

Chaturvedi, Sanjay. 2000. Arctic Geopolitics Then and Now. In The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy, edited by M. Nuttall and T. V. Callaghan. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.

Coates, Kenneth, and Judith Powell. 1989. The Modern North: People, Politics and the Rejection of Colonialism. Toronto: Lorimer.

Comeau, Pauline, and Aldo Santin. 1990. The First Canadians: A Profile of Canada's Native People Today. Toronto: Lorimer.

Conway, J F. 1983. The West: The History of a Region in Confederation. Toronto: Lorimer.

Dacks, Gurston. 1981. A Choice of Futures: Politics in the Canadian North. Toronto: Methuen.

Page 35 of 38

Dickerson, Mark O. 1992. Whose North? Political Change, Political Development and Self-Government in the Northwest Territories. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. 1992. The 'Nations Within': Aboriginal-State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Franks, C E S. 1987. Public Administration Questions Relating to Aboriginal Self-Government. Vol. 12, Aboriginal Peoples and Constitutional Reform. Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.

Fumolea, Rene. 2004. As Long As this Land Shall Last: A History of Treaty 8 and Treaty 11, 1870-1939. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Gonzalez-Casanova, Pablo. 1965. Internal Colonialism and National Development. Studies in Comparative International Development 1 (4):27-37.

Hawkes, David C. 1985. Aboriginal Self-Government: What Does It Mean? Aboriginal Peoples and Constitutional Reform Discussion Paper. Kingston: Queen's University, Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.

Hechter, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536-1966. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Horvath, Ronald J. 1972. A Definition of Colonialism. Current Anthropology 13 (1):45-57.

Irlbacher-Fox, Stephanie. Governance In Canada's Northwest Territories: Emerging Institutions and Governance Issues. In Governance, Resources, and Co-Management: Northern Research Forum.

Lee, Bill. 1992. Colonialization and Community: Implications for First Nations Development. Community Development Journal 27:211-219.

Lovering, John. 1978. The Theory of the "Internal Colony" and the Political Economy of Wales. Review of Radical Political Economics 10 (3):55-67.

Lusthaus, C., M.H. Adrien, and M. Perstinger. 1999b. Capacity Development: Definitions, Issues and Implications for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. Universalia Occasional Paper No 35:1-21.

Page 36 of 38

Minority Rights Group. 1994. Polar People: Self-Determination and Development. London: Minority Rights Publication.

Monem, Alex. 2003. Tłįcho Agreement: Plainspeak. Toronto: Plainspeak Cultural Awareness.

Nuttall, Mark. 1992. Arctic Homeland: Kinship, Community and Development in Northwest Greenland. London: Belhaven Press.

———. 1998. Protecting the Arctic: Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Survival. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

———. 2000. Indigenous Peoples, Self-Determination, and the Arctic Environment. In The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy, edited by M. Nuttall and T. V. Callagan. Amsterdam: Harwood.

Patterson, Kirk R. 1976. The Theory and Practice of Home Rule In the International North. In The North In Transitions, edited by N. Ørvik and K. R. Patterson. Kingston: Queen's University.

Phillips, P. 1982. Regional Disparities. 2 ed. Toronto: Lorimer.

Ponting, J. Rick, and Roger Gibbins. 1980. Peopling in the Bureaucracy. In Out of Irrelevance: A Socio-Political Introduction to Indian Affairs in Canada. Toronto: Butterworth.

Pretes, Michael. 1988. Underdevelopment in Two Norths: The Brazilian Amazon and the Canadian Arctic. Arctic 41 (2):109-116.

Saku, James C. 1995. The Socio-Economic Impact of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. PhD, Department of Geography, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.

Saku, James C., and Robert M. Bone. 2000. Looking for Solutions in the Canadian North: Modern Treaties as a New Strategy. The Canadian Geographer 44 (3):259-270.

Tłįcho Government. 2008. Frequently Asked Questions. Tłįcho Government 2005 [cited May 3 2008]. Available from http://www.tlicho.ca/tlicho-government/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm.

Usher, P.J. 1982. The North: Metropolitan Frontier, Native Homeland. In Heartland and Hinterland: A Geography of Canada, edited by L. D. McCann. Ottawa: Prentice Hall.

Page 37 of 38

Walls, David. 1978. Internal Colony or Internal Periphery? In Colonialism in Modern America: The Appalachian Case, edited by H. M. Lewis, L. Johnson and D. Askins. Boone: Appalachian Consortium Press.

Watkins, Mel. 1977. From Underdevelopment to Development. In The Dene Nation--The Colony Within, edited by M. Watkins. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.

WHO. 1985. Problems of Family Heath in the Circumpolar Region. In Arctic Medical Research Report: WHO/Nordic Council for Arctic Medical Research Working Group on Problems of Family Health in the Circumpolar Region.

Wolfe, Jack. 1991. Canada: Current Developments in Aboriginal Self-Government. In The Challenge of Northern Regions, edited by P. Jull and S. Roberts. Darwin Northern Territory: Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit.

Young, Oran R. 1993. Arctic Politics: Conflict and Cooperation in the Circumpolar North. Hanover and London: University Press of New England.

Page 38 of 38