        |
|
On 4 May 1992, 54 percent of all voters in the Canadian Northwest Territories accepted a proposal dividing the territory into an eastern section, Nunavut, and a western section, Denedeh. The land division was supported by the Inuit proponents of Nunavut, but opposed by the Dene Nation and the Metis peoples in the west.
The plebiscite was one step in a long negotiating process, which, if and when ratified by the Inuit people and the Canadian Parliament as part of a final land claim settlement, and combined with a political accord, will culminate in the creation of the Territory of Nunavut. It has been termed a "precedent setting" agreement. But some question the desirability of the precedent while others wonder if it accomplishes what the Inuit had hoped for. A similar land claims agreement was turned down in Denedeh.
Since the mid-1970s, the Inuit of the eastern arctic have been negotiating with the Canadian government over the largest "comprehensive claim" in Canada. Comprehensive claims cover lands where there has been no previous treaty or agreement signed, and aboriginal title has therefore not been extinguished. The government and development interests want title to the land cleared.
From the Inuit viewpoint there are two processes inextricably tied to this one issue: the land claims settlement and the creation of Nunavut. The Inuit position has been: "No Nunavut Territory, no land claims settlement." As a general statement of principle, this holds true for all First Nations peoples, who feel that "self-government" (an ambiguous and much debated concept) must be a part of any land claims settlement.
In December 1991, an Agreement-in-Principle (AIP) was signed between the Canadian government and the Inuit. The AIP gives only the Inuit people of Nunavut (85 percent of the population) the following items: fee simple title to 136,000 square miles (an area slightly larger than Finland); subsurface rights to 14,000 square miles; $580 million cash paid over 14 years (totaling approximately $1.5 billion in 1989 dollars); traditional rights to hunt, trap, and fish; nonrenewable-resource royalty rights; guaranteed equal membership of Inuits on resource and land management boards, with competing institutions of public (territorial or federal) governments to manage the land, water, and wildlife of Nunavut (disputes will be resolved by federal judicial boards in which Inuits have no control); and a guarantee to introduce a bill to create the Nunavut territory.
These could all be considered important rights for a traditional society struggling for autonomy within a nation-state structure. However, the rights are primarily administrative, not legislative. The approval of a Canadian federal government minister is still required for most decision-making, so ultimate authority still lies with the federal government, not with the indigenous people.
The management boards and even the eventual territorial elections are not and are not intended to be for Inuit self-determination, but rather for lower administrative institutions of Canadian government; that is, "self-government" rests on the presumption that Canadian national values, not indigenous values, determine the rules of the game. However, the Nunavut territorial government will be an Inuit government because 85 percent of the population of Nunavut is Inuit, thereby making self-government relatively effective. In addition, the Inuit think that 9-10 months of snow per year will keep non-Inuits out; that makes their situation unique among aboriginal peoples in Canada.
The agreement does reflect the goals of Nunavut proponents for a new territory that would be pluralistic, non-ethnic, and non-separatist. As envisioned by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC, negotiators of the political accord for Nunavut) in 1979, it is within the traditions of Canadian federalism and recognition of regional diversity. The ITC specifically rejected the Danish Greenlandic model of "Home Rule" as not viable in the Canadian political context. However, where the Inuit proposal, "Building Nunavut," included demands for negotiations on economic, social, cultural, political, and language rights, until recently the Canadian government has refused to recognize these elements as legitimate topics for negotiation within the land claims process. And apart from these issues, which are somewhat more symbol than substance, rights related to the use of and title to vital land and natural resources are to be specifically "released" (the new word for extinguishment of rights) in the context of the land claims settlement.
Fourth World Bulletin • October 1992
Copyright © 1996 by the Fourth World Center
Created by Aigis Communications, Ltd