3.1       Jurisdiction

According to the Constitution, in contrast to provinces, which have explicit constitutional powers in their own right, the territories exercise delegated powers under the authority of the Parliament of Canada.[19] That is, territories are restricted in their ability to amend their constitutions or directly control the management and sale of Crown lands.[20] Despite this constitutional relationship, as explained in section 2, the transfer of control over many provincial-like responsibilities to the territories over time has been negotiated with the federal government, including such things as the provision of health care services, education, housing and social services, and forest management and fire suppression.

The development of non-renewable natural resources—such as mining and minerals, including oil and gas—continues to be administered primarily by the federal government within most territories, although the federal government tends to work in collaboration with territorial and Aboriginal governments across the North on these matters. Yukon is the only territory to have completed devolution agreements with the federal government to transfer direct control over lands and resources, including oil and gas resources. Some Aboriginal governments also hold province-like powers in their settlement lands. In Yukon, most First Nations have acquired self-governing powers that provide them with control of their land and resources. Elsewhere in the northern territories, the Tlicho government in NWT has negotiated similar province-like powers through the settlement of its own self-government agreement in 2005. Devolution negotiations between the federal government and NWT and Nunavut governments are currently yet to be resolved.

Given the increasing level of control exercised by the territorial and Aboriginal governments in terms of the direct management of public services, lands and resources in the northern territories, the role of the federal government in the North is increasingly being regarded as that of a facilitator, in which it works in collaboration with territorial and Aboriginal governments to create a receptive political, social and economic environment for development in the northern territories.

3.2       Definitions of The North

Depending on the approach used, many different definitions of “The North” can be formulated. These definitions can be formed through considerations of such things as political jurisdiction, geographical location, environmental zones, geological formation, perceptions of isolation, etc. In particular, the Committee heard from various witnesses that any study of federal government policies and programs related to the North should also include considerations for regions north of the 60^th parallel in Quebec (Nunavik) and Labrador (Nunatsiavut), as many of the barriers to economic development faced by Inuit peoples in these regions are similar to barriers faced by those in Nunavut. This perspective is echoed in other studies on the Canadian North, notably in a recent study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, which recommended that the Government of Canada include Nunavik and Nunatsiavut “in its Northern Strategy and other programs for the North.”[21] The Committee bears this perspective in mind, and hopes that the findings and recommendations included within this present report could also help to inform provincial governments in the development of their northern regions, in collaboration with Aboriginal land claimants and other partners and stakeholders in those northern regions.

The Committee believes that restricting the focus of this study to the political boundaries of the northern territories facilitates the development of recommendations that can be most appropriately applied to the main role of the federal government, as facilitator of economic development in those regions. This restrictive definition is appropriate for several reasons. First, as explained in section 3.1 on jurisdiction, the federal government has main constitutional authority over the territories, while provinces have authority over their respective northern regions. Second, even though territorial governments have acquired province-like authority over most of their land and resources through agreements with the federal government, territories continue to be challenged in their ability to raise own-source revenues to service their spending needs. Third, communities in the northern territories are relatively more isolated than in the northern regions of provinces, with more severe deficits in infrastructure and exposure to more severe climate conditions.

3.3 Items Beyond Scope of Report

Although the Committee is grateful for the broad range of perspectives presented by all witnesses through their testimony before the Committee, several issues raised were determined at the outset by the Committee to be beyond the scope of this report. These include issues that are: considered outside of federal government jurisdiction; not directly relevant to the northern territories; directly related to business-to-business competition; lacking a minimal level of consensus in opinion; and lacking sufficient evidence or a convincing argument.

In addition, although the Committee recognizes that issues such as international sovereignty, remediation of contaminated sites, and the regulation of offshore drilling are directly linked with economic development in the North, as witnesses paid greater attention to other matters, these issues were not explored within the report. With little available evidence, the Committee would be limited in its capacity to formulate convincing arguments and recommendations on these matters.

The Committee also does not offer recommendations in support of a specific project proponent, business or industry sector, as this would require a degree of assessment and investigation that is beyond the mandate of this report.