The Adventure So Far:

In Part One, we discussed the nature of a Land Claim:, as contracts between a nation with constitutionally and internationally recognized title to land, and Canada, for mutual benefit.

In Part Two, we looked at the Nunavut Land Claim as an example of accelerated history.

In Part 3, we saw what Inuit gave up under the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, what Canada got, and what Canada promised Inuit in return.

A quick summary of what Inuit gained under their Land Claim Agreement, before we go on.

• 350,000 square kilometres (136,000 square miles) of land, in return for which they surrendered the rest of Nunavut’s 1.9 million square kilometers.
• Participation (but not final authority) with government on the wildlife management, resource management and environmental boards, and in international conventions and treaties
• They won the right to participate in i- but only as “participant-advisors.”
• A promise from Canada that Inuit needs would be given priority when setting or assigning quotas for things like turbot fisheries.
• A capital transfer payment of $1.148 billion (a bit less than the annual budget of the CBC.)
• Asmall percentage of federal government royalties from oil, gas and mineral development on Crown lands
• A firm promise commitment from the government that Inuit would be employed by government at “representative levels” within government.

In return for all that, Inuit gave up 80% of Canada’s largest territory, and any Aboriginal title, forever.

Well, the Inuit kept their side of the bargain. In the fifteen years since the Claim was ratified, Inuit have honoured every single one of their many obligations.

And how has the Government done?

1) One of the most important provision of the Claim was the Goverment’s promise to employ 85% Inuit within the Federal and Territorial governments in Nunavut. Fifteen years later, employment in the Government of Nunavut is at 51%. The Federal percentage is 33%, fallen from 39% in 2006. The Government commissioned Justice Thomas Berger to conduct an independent inquiry into this failure. Berger’s analysis was thorough, and quite clear: he recommended specific changes to the education and training systems. The report was submitted to the Harper Government in 2006: it is still “under review”, and Inuit employment figures continue to crash. An independent study by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the government’s failure to comply was costing Inuit 72 million dollars per year.

2) Fisheries represent one of the most promising areas within the developing Nunavut economy - unlik big mines, fisheries leave a lot of profit in the North. Article 15.3.7 of the NLCA requires that special consideration be given to the principle of adjacency and the economic dependence of communities in Nunavut when allocating commercial fishing licences within Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. Every other coastal jurisdiction in Canada is granted between 85 percent and 100 percent of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of fish in their coastal waters.

Since the signing of the Claim, however, both the Liberal and Conservative governments have simply ignored the principle of adjacency in setting quotas. There are simply more votes to be had in other ridings. In 1997 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans determined that the Nunavut Inuit would receive only 24 percent of the TAC for turbot; in 2003 the Minister set the TAC for Nunavut for shrimp at 19 percent.

3) The Claim allows for dispute resolution by an independent Arbitration Board. But when NTI, the Inuit organization implementing the Claim, announced their intention of submitting these and other federal failures for resolution, INAC declared that they would simply not consent to any funding-related questions to go to arbitration, effectively giving themselves a full veto.

I could go on. There have been dozens of federal failures, instances or reneging, stalling, or refusing to comply with the Claim. Legislation mandating the Instutions of Public Government was delayed for years. Negotiations on the renewed implementation contract have been stalled since 2003, with both Inuit and the Government of Nunavut placing the blame squarely on the instransigence and indifference of INAC. The Federal Government has failed to honour procurement policies under Article 24, or to establish a General Monitoring Program under Article 12, or to negotiate dispute resolution in good faith, or to appoint representatives with the required level of authority to the Nunavut Implementation Panel - the list goes on and on.

But what you need to know is this:
a) Inuit gave up a lot in order to settle this Land Claim, and they have kept their part of the bargain.
b) The Government gained a lot - and they’re been reneging on the deal virtually since it was signed.

One Land Claim negotiator put it like this: “The moment we signed the Claim, they started renegotiating it. They didn’t seem to understand that we did this in good faith, or that we were all trying to create something real, something that would work. For them, it was a checklist; they wanted to do the least they could.”

The Auditor General said the same thing, a bit more formally.

“INAC seems focused on fulfilling the letter of land claims implemetnation plans, but not the spirit. Officials may believe they have met their obligaiotn, but in fact they have not worked to support the full intent of the land claims agreement…Land claims arbitration panels have not dealt with any of the long standing agreements asince the claims were settled over ten years ago.”

Justice Thomas Berger agreed with the Auditor General, and noted that Canada’s failure to honour both the letter and the spirit of the Claim had serious implications for Canada’s claims to Arctic sovereignty, and, more broadly, to the honour of the Crown.

Canada’s unwillingness to even allow matters to be brought to arbitration has brought about something entirely unprecedented - Inuit are now suing the Government of Canada in an attempt to make Canada live up to the terms of its own Agreement.

If you read the discussion thread following the last Land Claims post, you will have noted that many Inuit, especially the younger beneficiaries, are furious. They believe that they were sold out by negotiators who were conned by a government that had no intention of meeting its obligations. And unfortunately, the government continues to prove them right.

The bottom line - these treaties and claims are not “ancient”. The biggest claim in our history was signed just fifteen years ago. And Canada’s betrayal of those claims didn’t stop years ago - it continues to this day. The protests you see - blockades, demonstrations, road closures - are not about ancient grievances. They’re about Canada, one party to a contract. failing again and again and again, to live up to their side of a very profitable deal - for Canada.

Next and Last Installment: Ten Stupid Misconceptions About Claims Laid To Rest.