LIST OF PANELS

Since 1995, when Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s federal Liberal government released its “Inherent Right Policy,” declaring Canada’s intention to cooperate with Indigenous groups to implement their “existing aboriginal and treaty rights” guaranteed in the constitution’s Section 35, the landscape of Indigenous governance in Canada has transformed.

Leaving behind not just the colonial strictures of the Indian Act but also the familiar framework of conventional federalism and the universalist norms of public government, more than 20 Indigenous self-governments have come into being, along with numerous Indigenous “claims co-management boards” and other shared-rule and multilevel Indigenous-governance institutions.

These are, arguably, cases of “treaty federalism” – of governance institutions, grounded in modern treaties and Indigenous rights, that provide Indigenous peoples with measures of self-rule, shared-rule, or both, in either territorial or non-territorial domains.

In Canada, treaty-federal subunits govern at least certain dimension of the lives of thousands of Indigenous citizens, make decisions affecting thousands more non-Indigenous Canadians, and span millions of square kilometres of territory. And they are just the beginning: In Canada, approximately 90 more Indigenous self-governments are presently under negotiation.

Meanwhile, in other “advanced democracies” with Indigenous minorities, such as Norway, Sweden, and Finland, “treaty federal” institutions are also under development. In otherwise-unitary states these involve radical constitutional reconfigurations. Some Fennoscandic “treaty federal” institutions would appear quite familiar to North American scholars; others are highly distinctive.

And yet, in all advanced democracies, the vast majority of scholarship on Indigenous governance still cleaves to the same themes it pursued decades ago – the challenges of identifying and implementing Indigenous rights, the failures of settler states to address historical and present injustice, and so forth.

There has been almost no concerted study of the new wave of Indigenous treaty-federal institutions – of their structures and functions, practices and procedures, successes and failures. Similarly, there has been little or no study of the interaction of these institutions with other state entities – with central and provincial/territorial governments, businesses, civil society, and so forth.

These areas are ripe for examination. Questions might be asked about citizen participation, representation, satisfaction and legitimacy. How happy are Indigenous citizens with their new self-governments? How do they interact with their representatives and give voice to their concerns and opinions? What are their voting patterns?

Questions might be asked about the behavior of political actors. How do treaty-federal representatives behave? Have political factions developed? Who runs for, and wins, office – are they young or old, men or women, traditionalists or modernists, etc.?

Questions might be asked about bureaucracy and administration. How have these self-governments been staffed? Have they developed a cadre of Indigenous bureaucrats? Are they dependent on outside, non-Indigenous bureaucratic expertise? Are there conflicts between the political and bureaucratic classes? Have administrations adapted to Indigenous values and behavioral styles, or have those styles bent to bureaucratic habits? 

Questions might be asked about funding and economic self-determination. Have self-governments developed an economic base, or are they dependent on outside monies? How do they raise and spend revenue? How do they balance decisions concerning industrial development with other social and environmental concerns? 

Questions might be asked about rights and constitutional relationships. Have non-Indigenous residents been accommodated within new Indigenous self-governments? How have non-Indigenous governments interacted with the new Indigenous self-governments to address conflicts or issues of mutual concern? What is the working relationship between provincial/territorial governments and Indigenous self-governments?

These questions are hardly exhaustive. They are, however, a place to begin, in an area of inquiry that is long overdue.

We welcome papers exploring Indigenous "treaty federal" institutions in Canada and abroad -- their structures and functions, practices and procedures, successes and failures, and their interactions with other state entities, whether central or provincial/territorial governments, businesses or civil society.

Since 1995, when Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s federal Liberal government released its “Inherent Right Policy,” declaring Canada’s intention to cooperate with Indigenous groups to implement their “existing aboriginal and treaty rights” guaranteed in the constitution’s Section 35, the landscape of Indigenous governance in Canada has transformed.

Leaving behind not just the colonial strictures of the Indian Act but also the familiar framework of conventional federalism and the universalist norms of public government, more than 20 Indigenous self-governments have come into being, along with numerous Indigenous “claims co-management boards” and other shared-rule and multilevel Indigenous-governance institutions.

These are, arguably, cases of “treaty federalism” – of governance institutions, grounded in modern treaties and Indigenous rights, that provide Indigenous peoples with measures of self-rule, shared-rule, or both, in either territorial or non-territorial domains.

In Canada, treaty-federal subunits govern at least certain dimension of the lives of thousands of Indigenous citizens, make decisions affecting thousands more non-Indigenous Canadians, and span millions of square kilometres of territory. And they are just the beginning: In Canada, approximately 90 more Indigenous self-governments are presently under negotiation.

Meanwhile, in other “advanced democracies” with Indigenous minorities, such as Norway, Sweden, and Finland, “treaty federal” institutions are also under development. In otherwise-unitary states these involve radical constitutional reconfigurations. Some Fennoscandic “treaty federal” institutions would appear quite familiar to North American scholars; others are highly distinctive.

And yet, in all advanced democracies, the vast majority of scholarship on Indigenous governance still cleaves to the same themes it pursued decades ago – the challenges of identifying and implementing Indigenous rights, the failures of settler states to address historical and present injustice, and so forth.

There has been almost no concerted study of the new wave of Indigenous treaty-federal institutions – of their structures and functions, practices and procedures, successes and failures. Similarly, there has been little or no study of the interaction of these institutions with other state entities – with central and provincial/territorial governments, businesses, civil society, and so forth.

These areas are ripe for examination. Questions might be asked about citizen participation, representation, satisfaction and legitimacy. How happy are Indigenous citizens with their new self-governments? How do they interact with their representatives and give voice to their concerns and opinions? What are their voting patterns?

Questions might be asked about the behavior of political actors. How do treaty-federal representatives behave? Have political factions developed? Who runs for, and wins, office – are they young or old, men or women, traditionalists or modernists, etc.?

Questions might be asked about bureaucracy and administration. How have these self-governments been staffed? Have they developed a cadre of Indigenous bureaucrats? Are they dependent on outside, non-Indigenous bureaucratic expertise? Are there conflicts between the political and bureaucratic classes? Have administrations adapted to Indigenous values and behavioral styles, or have those styles bent to bureaucratic habits? 

Questions might be asked about funding and economic self-determination. Have self-governments developed an economic base, or are they dependent on outside monies? How do they raise and spend revenue? How do they balance decisions concerning industrial development with other social and environmental concerns? 

Questions might be asked about rights and constitutional relationships. Have non-Indigenous residents been accommodated within new Indigenous self-governments? How have non-Indigenous governments interacted with the new Indigenous self-governments to address conflicts or issues of mutual concern? What is the working relationship between provincial/territorial governments and Indigenous self-governments?

These questions are hardly exhaustive. They are, however, a place to begin, in an area of inquiry that is long overdue.