• darkblurbg
    Canadian Political Science Association
    2020 Annual Conference Programme

    Confronting Political Divides
    Hosted at Western University
    Tuesday, June 2 to Thursday, June 4, 2020
  • darkblurbg
    Presidential Address:
    Barbara Arneil, CPSA President

    Origins:
    Colonies and Statistics

    Location:
    Tuesday, June 2, 2020 | 05:00pm to 06:00pm
  • darkblurbg
    KEYNOTE SPEAKER:
    Ayelet Shachar
    The Shifting Border:
    Legal Cartographies of Migration
    and Mobility

    Location:
    June 04, 2020 | 01:30 to 03:00 pm
  • darkblurbg
    Keynote Speaker: Marc Hetherington
    Why Modern Elections
    Feel Like a Matter of
    Life and Death

    Location:
    Wednesday, June 3, 2020 | 03:45pm to 05:15pm
  • darkblurbg
    Plenary Panel
    Indigenous Politics and
    the Problem of Canadian
    Political Science

    Location: Arts & Humanities Building - AHB 1R40
    Tuesday, June 2, 2020 | 10:30am to 12:00pm

Race, Ethnicity, Indigenous Peoples and Politics



L10(b) - At the Crossroads: Indigenous Engagements with Canadian Political Institutions, Policies and Processes

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 10:30am to 12:00pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Erin Tolley (University of Toronto)

Inuit tradition, the legislative Assembly and political parties.: Alex Norman (University of Leeds)
Abstract: The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut is presented to have no political parties. In fact, the absence of political parties at a territorial level is one of the distinctions of Nunavut, along with the Northwest territories, from the rest of the Canadian provinces and territories. Yet, before the creation of the territory several politicians and civil servants expected the rise of political parties in the new territory. Some advanced that the specificity of Nunavut creates campaign-related challenges for territorial political parties. Still, the absence of political parties is claimed by academics and MLAs to be explained by the Inuit tradition within the territory. This paper is not about how their absence affects the proceedings of the legislature. Rather, it analyses the mentions of political parties by Members of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly in parliamentary debates through analysis of Hansard. It investigates how MLAs are constructing their discourse on political parties. Using Saward's theory of representative claim (2006; 2010), the paper maps the different claims that MLAs are making on the absence of political parties within the Legislative Assembly. In addition, it also investigates on any claims in relation to Inuit values, especially Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Finally, the paper will conclude in a discussion between the explanation of the absence of political parties by the literature and the different claims made by MLAs on political parties.


Does Co-Development of Policy Actually Work? Lessons from the Collaborative Federal Fiscal Policy Process with Self-Governing Indigenous Governments: Martin Papillon (Université de Montréal), Rosanna Nicol (NVision Insight Group), Adam Perry (Nisga’a Lisims Governement)
Abstract: When the Trudeau government first came to power in 2015, “renewing” the relationship with Indigenous peoples was a key priority. Indigenous organizations and governments, the new Prime Minister promised, would be considered equal partners in the development of policies and legislations that directly concern them. The federal government established a number of « government to government tables » to foster joint policy-making with Indigenous governments and organisations in a wide rage of policy sectors. The collaborative federal fiscal policy development process is one example of this new approach to policy making. Under this process, representatives of self-governing Indigenous governments have been working with federal officials to rewrite the federal fiscal policy on how self-government is financed. Building on input form key participants, this paper 1) provides an in-depth analysis of the process, 2) assess the process in light of the literature on joint policy-making and multilevel governance and 3) inductively develops an analytical framework to further study and compare joint policy exercises between Indigenous governing authorities and state authorities in Canada.


Rivers and Rows: Self and Shared Rule in the Theory of Treaty Federalism: Meaghan Williams (University of Toronto)
Abstract: Treaty federalism develops a clear argument for self-rule within the established federal constitutional framework of Canada; however, it fails to adequately consider and theorize shared rule within its own framework. This paper elaborates on the gap, arguing that the gap itself is not because shared rule is not possible within treaty federalism (as some scholars have argued), but rather, that it has been overlooked in favour of a more pressing concern. As self-rule has become more and more achievable within the state architecture (and outside of it!), it is now possible to examine the space within treaty federalism for shared rule and what principles might underpin it. Furthermore, this paper addresses the concern that shared rule is a premature concern given the fragility of self-rule by arguing that first, any theory of federalism must demonstrate a capacity for enacting both self- and shared-rule. Second, the idea that shared-rule must be pursued subsequent to self-rule is flawed: the manner in which shared rule is considered and adopted, as well as the institutions that facilitate shared-rule in a federal system, affect and condition the manner of self-rule itself. Finally, theorizing shared-rule in treaty federalism may actually facilitate stronger self-rule by delimiting state powers and ensuring the transfer of resources and jurisdiction to First Nations, thereby legitimating First Nations’ self-rule within the Canadian federal order.


Indigenous Voice: Westminster-systems and Indigenous representation: Kiera Ladner (University of Manitoba), Marcus Closen (University of Toronto), Dane Monkman (University of Manitoba)
Abstract: Indigenous peoples have been traditionally underrepresented in the democracies they reside within. While some have facilitated Indigenous voices in parliaments and legislatures in some form, others have not been able to do so. New Zealand guarantees seats in their Parliament to the Maori people, while many Nordic countries have advisory relationships with Sami parliaments. Drawing on Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the authors discuss the potential fit between Westminster-system parliaments and an advisory or a third chamber for Indigenous representation, specifically focussing on representation in Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, which presently lack an official, national organ for this type of representation. Presenting a possibility to fulfill Indigenous peoples right to participation in the decision making processes, the authors present a path forward in conjunction with existing procedures to welcome Indigenous voice into the apparatus of the state. The Canadian focus examines the relationship of treaty and the need for representative and responsible government as part of these obligations during a time which Indignenous peoples are strongly resisting encroachment on their collective rights and self-determination. The paper gives thought to constitutions, institutional design, and policy implications this might bring about, and potential ways forward for Indigenous representation throughout settler societies. With on-going reconciliation movements, and drives toward self-determination, the idea of greater political representation becomes an important factor toward these goals. This is accomplished using new institutionalist methods, adding to a rich tradition in political science of these approaches to representational issues.




Return to Home