74
Arctic Yearbook 2015
Unlike the United States, Canada did not settle northern claims in one fell swoop. Instead, Canada’s
decision to introduce a policy of negotiation in 1973 clearly set the development of Arctic
regionalization in motion. In comparison to Alaska’s ad hoc solution, negotiation favoured the
development of clearly defined regions constrained by group identity. The structure of the policy tied
collective rights to the identification of distinct groups that occupied and utilized a bounded
geographic territory.
Under Comprehensive Land Claims (CLCs), the Government of Canada invited Indigenous groups
that had never previously signed a treaty to begin negotiating claims. This did not necessarily mean
that singularly homogenous groups advanced their claims (for example, the Sahtu land claim was a
combined Dene and Métis claim). However, whereas Alaska’s process set regional boundaries as the
ANCSA process approached finalization, Canada’s modern land claims pushed Indigenous peoples
to self-organize into most-similar groups based on region, culture, and ethnicity prior to negotiation.
By virtue of this group self-identification, the conceptualization of regions in northern Canada was
more deliberate. More importantly, the lengthy negotiations resulted in stronger units of regional
governance than those created in Alaska. Initially (and like Alaska), the settled claims relied on the
transfer of land, money, and resource revenues through the creation of regional corporations.
However, these regional corporations were primarily not-for-profit organizations and Canada’s model
of regionalism was embedded through the creation of regulatory boards whose borders were
geographically identical to the regional land claims. These regulatory boards institutionalized
Indigenous participation on regional environmental screening committees and review boards9 and
have reinforced Indigenous authority over resource development (White 2002).
Canada’s policy of negotiation continued to evolve throughout the next few decades as the country’s
legal regime changed. Indigenous collective rights were reinforced through different venues, including
through the period of constitutional negotiations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Though the Meech
Lake and Charlottetown Accords ultimately failed, the negotiations shaped a new path forward and
significantly affected the norms regarding the place of Indigenous Cana