No abstract

Abstract. There is an emerging consensus that group differentiated rights can protect collective identity, furnishing the state with important tools of accommodation. What happens, however, to the efficacy of these rights as tools of accommodation and their protective capacity if the identity they are meant to protect and accommodate is contested? In addressing this question, this paper explores the intersection of identity contestation and group differentiated rights in the Canadian context with specific reference to aboriginality and existing aboriginal rights. First, the paper offers a presentation of the plurality of meanings shouldered by the term “aboriginality”. Second, it traces the numerous decisions which comprise the Dlegamuukw case and examines the various explanations, descriptions and characterizations of aboriginality contained therein. In the process, it exposes that a particular understanding of this collective identity underpins the Court's ultimate characterization of aboriginal title, the aboriginal right at issue in this case. This represents a problematic interpretation, given that the version of aboriginality selected differs from the one put forward by the aboriginal litigants.Résumé. Un consensus émergeant s'établit sur l'idée que les droits différenciés en fonction de l'appartenance à un groupe peuvent contribuer à la protection de l'identité collective, en fournissant à l'État d'importants outils d'accommodement. Qu'arrive-t-il, cependant, à l'efficacité de ces droits compris comme des outils d'accommodement, de même qu'à leur capacité de protection, si l'identité qu'ils sont censés protéger et accommoder est contestée? En répondant à cette question, cet article explore l'intersection entre la contestation identitaire et les droits différenciés en fonction du groupe dans le contexte canadien, avec, comme cas d'étude spécifique, l'autochtonie et les droits des autochtones. D'une part, il explore la pluralité de sens que revêt le terme “ autochtonie ”. D'autre part, il retrace les nombreuses décisions que comprend le cas Delgamuukw et examine les diverses explications, descriptions et caractérisations de l'autochtonie qu'elles contiennent. Dans ce cadre, il souligne qu'une compréhension particulière de cette identité collective sous-tend l'ultime caractérisation par la Cour suprême du titre autochtone, soit le droit des autochtones qui est au cœur de ce procès. Ceci constitue une interprétation problématique puisque la version de l'autochtonie sélectionnée diffère de celle que prônaient les litigants autochtones.

No abstract

Objective. Natural resource policy has been a constant source of conflict between "Aboriginal" and "non-Aboriginal" stakeholders in Canada. We employ a historical institutionalist analysis to examine the extent to which changes to the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and Ontario's Mining Act in 2009 enabled Aboriginal communities to become equal partners in participatory governance arrangements in mineral resource sectors. Methods. We analyze primary sources consisting of federal and provincial legislation and in-person interviews conducted across Ontario in 2010. Results. The existing Canadian mining policy paradigm, while under significant pressure, has not yet been displaced by a new policy paradigm that would better accommodate the interests of Aboriginal stakeholders. Consequently, Aboriginal peoples' mineral resource claims are likely to remain unresolved. Conclusion. We suggest how a policy paradigm that both improves Aboriginal-state relations and reduces uncertainty in the mining sector offers a promising political foundation for participatory governance and cooperative engagement between stakeholders.