The Adventure So Far:
In Part One, we discussed the nature of a Land Claim. The key point was the Land Claims aren’t about “white guilt” or reparations for past wrongs - they’re contracts between a nation with constitutionally and internationally recognized title to land, and Canada, for mutual benefit.
In Part Two, we looked at one major Claim as an example of accelerated history. Inuit went through the contact-urbanization-claim process in a couple of generations - the Nunavut Claim is an interesting case study.
In this installment, we’ll see what Inuit won, and what they surrendered.
Over the twenty or so years from the early seventies to 1993, Inuit mobilized to assert their right to the Nunavut Terrirory. Their legal title was never in doubt or challenged. The only question was what they’d have to give up, and what they’d get in return for surrendering their title forever.
The negotiations went on for two decades, through the terms of six Prime Ministers and dozens of negotiators on both sides, and the Claim was finally ratified by Parliament in 1993.
Here’s what Inuit actually gained and lost in the Claim.
• They gained clear title to 350,000 square kilometres (136,000 square miles) of land, of which 35,257 square kilometres (14,000 square miles miles) include mineral rights. In return, they gave up any claim to the rest of Nunavut’s 1.9 million square kilometers.
• They won the right to participate with government on the wildlife management, resource management and environmental boards. But all their their appointees are subject to Crown approval.
• They won the right to participate in international conventions and treaties - but only as “participant-advisors.”
• They won the right to harvest wildlife on lands and waters throughout the Nunavut settlement area, with a promise from Canada that Inuit needs would be given priority when setting or assigning quotas for things like turbot fisheries.
• They got a capital transfer payment of $1.148 billion. That sounds like a lot - in fact, it’s a bit less than the annual budget of the CBC.
• They won a share of federal government royalties from oil, gas and mineral development on Crown lands, and the right to negotiate with industry for economic and social benefits from non-renewable resource development.
• They won the right to negotiate with the Government or industry when new development occurs for things like national parks, mining exploration or conservation ares, for benefits like Inuit employment, training, scholarship, and so on.
• They won a commitment from the government that Inuit would be employed by government at “representative levels” within government.
• And they won a commitment from the government to create a new Territory, to be called Nunavut. This was hugely important. Inuit had been a tiny minority within their own homeland. Education, health and employment policies and programs were all delivered out of either Yellowknife or Alberta.
All this sounds like a lot. But Inuit also gave up a lot to achieve that. The very first page of the Claim states the following:
“The Parties agree on the desirability of negotiating a land claims agreement through which Inuit shall receive defined rights and benefits in exchange for surrender of any claims, rights, title and interests based on their assertion of an Aboriginal Title. “
Put simply, Inuit gave up 80% of Canada’s largest territory, a region rich in oil, gas, minerals, and tourism potential, for roughly the price of developing a single diamond mine, plus guarantees that they’d be able to participate in a meaningful way in the governance of their territory. Inuit gained no special tax exemptions - they pay the same federal tax and GST as you do.
In return, Canada got clear,perpetual and unchallenged title to roughly a million and a half square kilometers (about two Germanies). That had important legal consequence, but it also has important economic consequences. As long as title to the land was in doubt, developers were unwilling to risk the massive investment required to establish mines: the situation was simply too uncertain. Now the ground rules for exploration and development are clear, and the procedures to enforce them are in place: development is proceeding as never before.
Canada benefits from that development through taxation, and of course so do Canadian shareholders in the corporations opening the mines.
Canada’s title also strengthens our argument for Arctic sovereignty, and our argument that the northwest passage is Canadian water.
So all in all, Canada did extremely well: acquired clear title to Nunavut in perpetuity, shut down any possible future claim against that land, and opened the way to extremely profitable development.
You’d think with a bargain like that, Canada would at least deliver on its side of the bargain, wouldn’t you? Of course they would.
Of course.
Next Installment: The Great Canadian Bait And Switch.
It was very interesting how the negotiations winded down and the agreement was ratified via referendum.
Many of today’s “leaders” in Nunavut were heavily involved in the negotiation of the NCLA - and as a result all campaigned hard to ratify the NLCA.
A few long voices stood out though - prominent people who thought it was giving up too much for too little. They were few and far between, but IMHO they had the foresight that most of their political peers didn’t, and were dismissed and marginalized as a result.
Many people my age (mid-20’s) feel that it was a bad deal, and like I’ve said before I have a few friends who refuse to sign up as beneficiaries and relinquish their aboriginal title. But, the usual suspects got their fanfare and high-paying jobs, and here we are.
Good job on the summary Balb, I eagerly await the next installment.