1. NORTHERN SOVEREIGNTY AND ABORIGINAL SELF-DETERMINATION
April 7, 2010
PREPARED FOR:
2010 ANNUAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS (AAG) CONFERENCE
APRIL 14TH
, WASHINGTON, DC, USA
PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION # 90049433
SUBMITTED BY:
JAMES A. UMPHERSON
PHD STUDENT,
TRENT UNIVERSITY,
PETERBOROUGH, ON, CANADA

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

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