Democratic Self-Determination in Nunavut: Representation, Reciprocity and Mineral Development by Joshua Gladstone A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies in Environment and Resource Studies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2009 © Joshua Gladstone 2009 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii ABSTRACT Inuit exercise a significant degree of self-determination in Nunavut through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, particularly in the area of non-renewable resource development. Self- determination is linked to both Inuit and Canadian identity and conceptualized in its democratic form as relationships of autonomy and interdependence mediated by resource management institutions. This thesis argues that democratic self-determination depends on local experiences of reciprocity and legitimate institutional representation. Nunavut’s institutional actors have the potential to establish locally acceptable norms of reciprocity and representation through (quasi-) constitutionally mandated Inuit Associations, an Inuit public government at the municipal and territorial levels, and resource co-management boards. Using a qualitative research methodology involving document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participant observation, this thesis explores how residents of Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, are experiencing democratic self- determination from the perspectives of representation and reciprocity. Results indicate that conflict between municipalities and Inuit Associations over the distribution of resource benefits can overshadow attitudes of reciprocity between public and Inuit spheres. Although both Inuit Associations and public governments are seen as legitimately representing local interests in resource development, each have distinct roles: Inuit Associations negotiate Impact and Benefit Agreements with industry as a matter of right, while public government’s role is the responsible delivery of social services. The legitimacy of Inuit Associations as representatives of Inuit interests was challenged by a minority of research participants who expressed concerns about elitism and unaccountability of Inuit officials, and educational barriers to non-elite participation in decision-making. Meanwhile the criticisms registered against the public governments illustrated contemporary attitudes of resentment based on a history of colonialism and distance from centre to periphery. The Nunavut Impact Review Board was found to be a valuable mechanism for managing Inuit-state relations in its ability to foster trust, though its ability to determine the just distribution of resource benefits is circumscribed. Ultimately, this research suggests that from the perspective of reciprocity and legitimate representation, the birth of Nunavut should not be considered an end to the struggle for greater local democratic control over economic and political destinies. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my profound thanks to the community of Cambridge Bay for welcoming me so warmly into town. In particular I would like to thank the Klengenberg and Aknavigak families, especially Clarence and Emma, Bobby and Rosabelle, Linda and Derek, Christine, and Bunnik whose friendship and support have had profound effects on me and my research. Grateful thanks also goes to Leslie Payette, Chris King, Lena Atatahak, Jeannie Ehaloak, Junna Ehaloak, Goog and Tuma (who will not be forgotten), Logan Pigalak and Sandra Eyegetok. I would also like to extend my deep gratitude to my advisors Mary Louise McAllister and Len Tsuji. Your insight and guidance has benefited this work significantly. Not to mention your ongoing encouragement to continue my research while stationed in Nunavut. Many thanks also go to my cohort at the University of Waterloo for properly fertilizing (and watering) the mind of a geologist. Thanks to the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Miramar Hope Bay Limited for their generous financial and in-kind support for this project. Special thanks is especially due to Bernie MacIsaac, Carson Gillis, Stephanie Autut, John Wakeford and Ross Sherlock. I am also grateful for the support of Pauloosie Suvega at the Government of Nunavut. Many thanks to my family and friends for their love encouragement, especially Kate Rossiter (for her insight and the final push), Ari Hunter, Peter Kolla, Susan Enuaraq and Kalman Strauss. And last but certainly not least, my deep gratitude to Janna MacLachlan for keeping the home fires burning in Iqaluit. These acknowledgements would not be complete without a extending a hearty thanks to the good people of Brussels, Ontario, especially Peter Workman, Kathy and Frank, Betty and Ralph, Jim and Lois, Sheila, David and Tamara, Auntie Bella and Pierre. And finally, a special thanks to Archie McDonald and Bethany Jensen. Your contributions were unexpected and deeply generous. iv DEDICATION For my parents v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................... iix LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................x LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1 1.2 RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE......................................................................................................................1 1.3 NUNAVUT...............................................................................................................................................4 1.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................7 1.5 CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARIES ..................................................................................................................9 1.6 INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS IN NUNAVUT ..................................................................................10 1.7 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................................12 1.8 A NOTE ON LANGUAGE.......................................................................................................................12 1.9 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND CASE STUDY............................................................................13 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................17 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................17 2.2 RESEARCH APPROACH .......................................................................................................................17 2.2.1 Case Study Approach..................................................................................................................17 2.3 QUALITATIVE METHODS....................................................................................................................20 2.3.1 Participant Observation ................................................................................................................20 2.3.2 Field Work ..................................................................................................................................21 2.3.3 Literature Review........................................................................................................................21 2.3.4 Semistructured Interviews............................................................................................................22 2.5 DATA ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................26 2.4 RESEARCH ETHICS .............................................................................................................................27 2.6 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................27 CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUALIZING DEMOCRATIC SELF-DETERMINATION IN NUNAVUT ..................................................................................................................................................28 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................28 3.2 RELATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION ................................................................................................28 3.3 DEMOCRACY AND SELF-DETERMINATION ........................................................................................41 3.3.1 Pluralism .....................................................................................................................................41 3.3.2 Deliberative Democracy..............................................................................................................46