The Indigenous Land Claims in New Zealand and Canada

More documents

Recommendations

Info

describes the JBNQA agreement as “the first modern treaty” (Bone 1992, 220) between theGovernment of Canada and an Aboriginal People.According to J. Rick Ponting, this new treaty and those that followed,were designed to provide more than token economic support to Indians. They wereframed to do so in a manner that would carry Indians forward with both a viabletraditional sector for those who chose that way of life, and an adequate share of politicaleconomicpower … to protect Indian interests and to create enduring economicopportunity of a non-traditional type (Ponting 1991, 194).This adequate share of political-economic power was to be achieved through: (i) cash compensation,(ii) outright ownership and control over an expanded land base, (iii) a right to participate in themanagement of activities on a far larger ‘shared’ land base and (iv) the establishment of a variety ofgovernmental and administrative bodies to provide for the exercise of self-government and the pursuitof socioeconomic development.The forces that gave rise to the JBNQA were the same as those underlying the MacKenzieValley Inquiry. This was characterized as a struggle by Aboriginal peoples for control of theirtraditional lands and recognition of their Aboriginal rights. The event that precipitated the crisis andresulted in the agreement was the 1971 decision of Quebec to develop the hydroelectric potential ofthe rivers draining into James Bay. In that year, the province “created the James Bay DevelopmentCorporation to develop all the territory’s [northern Quebec] resources, including hydro, forestrymining and tourism” (INAC 1993, 1).Understandably, the Aboriginal peoples who had occupied the region ‘since timeimmemorial’, the Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi, objected to the failure of the province to recognize theirrights on and to these lands. In the fall of 1972, they petitioned the Quebec Superior Court for aninjunction stopping all work on the James Bay hydro-electric project until their land claims weresettled. The injunction was granted and, although it was subsequently overturned, “the determination12
of Natives to protect their historic land-based interests led to negotiations toward a land claimsettlement” (INAC 1993, 1).An agreement-in-principle was reached between Canada, Quebec, the Cree and the Inuit in1974 and the final agreement was signed on November 11, 1975. According to Bone,The James Bay Agreement called for $225 million to be paid to the Cree and Inuit over aten-year period, outright ownership of 13,300 km 2 , and exclusive hunting rights over155,000 km 2 (Bone 1992, 220).Subsequently, the Naskapi Indian Band of northeastern Quebec reached a similar agreement, theNEQA, which became part of an amended JBNQA in 1978. Under the agreement, the Naskapireceived $9 million in compensation. The fact is that this agreement is the first of the modernsettlements and as such “may have set the terms for future modern treaties” (Bone 1992, 220). Thus,its terms are worthy of review in some detail.The land provisions of the agreement are complex, involving three categories, each with adifferent level of Aboriginal ownership and control. Category I lands are set aside for the exclusiveuse and benefit of Aboriginal peoples of the Cree and Inuit communities of the James Bay region. TheCree received 2,158 square miles and the Inuit 3,130 square miles of such land. The variouscommunity corporations hold title to the land and it cannot be sold to anyone other than the provinceof Quebec. The JBNQA says the following about Inuit Category I lands,Title to the land shall be transferred to Inuit Community Corporations for Inuitcommunity purposes, which shall include the use of the lands by the Inuit CommunityCorporations for commercial, industrial, residential or other purposes (JBNQA, Section7.1.3).Category I lands or any portion thereof may not be sold or otherwise ceded except to theCrown in the right of Quebec. Subject to the provisions of this section, an InuitCommunity Corporation shall enjoy the usual rights of an owner and, more particularly,may make with any person, including a non-Inuit, agreements in respect to servitude,leases and other rights of use and occupation respecting such lands (JBNQA, Section7.1.5).Similar terms and conditions apply to the Category I lands of the Cree.13
Page 1 and 2: The Saskatchewan Institute of Publi
Page 3 and 4: This paper explores the struggle by
Page 5 and 6: RECOGNIZING the urgent need to resp
Page 7: the treaties signed. It must also n
Page 11 and 12: The Canadian CasesBefore examining
Page 13: esource-based corporations for cert
Page 17 and 18: administration and development of t
Page 19 and 20: • Nunavik Arctic Foods harvests w
Page 21: In 1982, the CRA created the Cree R
Page 25 and 26: Inuvialuit Final AgreementIn May 19
Page 27 and 28: The massive project would, in turn,
Page 29 and 30: the rebuilding of the Inuvialuit
Page 31 and 32: that the settlement does not includ
Page 33 and 34: nearly enough to redress the previo
Page 35 and 36: Ngai Tahu Tourism is the parent com
Page 37 and 38: ConclusionNow to return to the four
Page 39 and 40: About the AuthorsRobert B. Anderson
Page 41 and 42: Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights
Page 43: No. 23 Performance Measurement, Rep

The Indigenous Land Claims in New Zealand and Canada

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?