By Matt Turnbull
The land claims process in Canada is meant to be a crucial service whereby aboriginal groups can be compensated for breaches of treaties or trust by the Canadian government or gain rights to traditional lands not otherwise legally granted or protected. However, the bureaucratic machinery responsible for this process has been admonished by several groups for its sluggish pace and controversial rulings. This, in part, has led to tension and sometimes conflict, including several well-publicized (and other less known) confrontations. How can the theory or structure of the land claims process be altered to provide justice and improve relations between groups?
The department of Indian and Native Affairs Canada (INAC) distinguishes between two different types of land claims. Comprehensive claims deal with “where Aboriginal land rights have not been dealth with by past treaties or through other legal means” and provide an avenue to secure traditional lands, whereas specific claims deal with “past grievances of First Nations related to Canada’s obligations under historic treaties or the way it managed First Nations’ funds or other assets” according to the INAC website. The overall process, as explained by the Canadian Encyclopaedia, is designed to “make economic and social adjustments between two different societies.” It is thus meant to provide a recourse to aboriginal groups and reduce disparity.
Land claims can not only provide justice but also, in some cases, change the political and social environment. The largest claim in Canadian history is, by far, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 which led to the establishment of Nunavut as a territory in 1999. Although the territory has its share of difficulties to overcome, Nunavut still represents an incredible land mark in the scope of land claims. It also incorporates several progressive and integrative structures in its governance, such as the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth which is mandated to preserve traditions and heritage. But should the federal government be doing more to improve the standard of living in Nunavut and promote Inuit culture? Or is governance and cultural preservation best left to provincial and local authorities?
In some cases there is significant friction between aboriginal groups and corporations, government projects, or even civilians attempting to use land already protected by treaty or for which a claim is being negotiated. The most recognizable example is probably the Oka crisis in 1990, when protesters from the Mohawk community of Kanesatake built barricades to block the expansion of a residential area and golf course onto ancestral lands which included a grove and burial area. These lands were originally given to a missionary group by France in 1717. Suggestions from the 1991 assessment of the crisis by the Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs were reported into Canadian land claims policy. However, twenty years after the crisis, the CBC reported that the land claim negotiations were still in process and that residential construction and niobium extraction now threatened the area. What lessons have we taken away from this, or failed to learn? How can leaders on both sides communicate more effectively to prevent these situations from occurring? And to what extent is the structure and efficiency of the land claims process to blame?
Another land claim conflict which many Queen’s students remember is the uranium mining dispute between Frontenac Ventures and the Shabot and Ardoch First Nation groups around Sharbot Lake just north of Kingston. Both disputed (in the process of claim negotiation) and private land was staked for exploration; according to a Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 2008 booklet, “Any area of Crown land can be staked, including land traditionally used by Aboriginal people and communities.”This led to a series of protests, despite court injunctions barring any protesters from the site and permitting their arrest.Queen’s University professor Bob Lovelace was sentenced to six months in jail and a $25,000 fine, but charges against him and several others were dropped a week after Lovelace was released after serving 100 days of his sentence.
Despite successes, even major ones, land disputes such as these (among many others) send the message that the claims process is insufficient for the needs of aboriginal communities. In 2007, Steven Harper announced $250 million dollars every year for 10 years would be contributed to reducing the back log (approximately 3000 cases) of land claims and appointed a tribunal to make final decisions. Whether this money will have the intended effect remains to be seen. Is the land claims process an efficient one, or is there a better way? How can the goals of the government, First Nations groups, and businesses be reconciled? What does the future of aboriginal in land claims in Canada hold – and, if different, what should it hold?
No comments:
Post a Comment