Canada’s Strategy of Dispossession: Aboriginal Land and Rights Cessions in Comprehensive Land Claims

Abstract

This paper offers a sociological interpretation of the Canadian Comprehensive Land Claims (CLC) process, arguing that CLC is a strategy used by the state to dispossess Aboriginal peoples. CLC does this through leveraging the cession of Aboriginal rights and the relinquishing of indigenous lands. Drawing upon the ongoing Innu Nation Tshash Petapen (‘New Dawn’) agreement, I examine four related aspects of the process and the agreement which operate to dispossess the Innu: (1) the undemocratic social and political contexts in which agreement is elicited, (2) the depletion of Aboriginal rights of the indigenous party, (3) the depletion of indigenous lands, and (4) the creation of wealth and debt. Finally, I will interpret these processes as building on social changes inflicted on the Innu. These are characterized by imposed law and the state of exception.

Analyzing entangled territorialities and Indigenous use of maps: Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok (Quebec, Canada) dynamics of territorial negotiations, frictions, and creativity

“…In Indigenous studies, the concept of overlapping territories is often used to identify areas of occupation that are claimed by at least two Indigenous nations (Sletto 2009; Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Thom 2014; Vincent 2016). In the context of territorial negotiations between Indigenous nations and the federal and provincial governments, the issue of overlapping territories is problematic since each Indigenous nation must, according to the federal government's Comprehensive Land Claims Policy , demonstrate an “exclusive” occupation of the territory (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016). In this context, the federal and provincial governments are suggesting to First Nations that they resolve this issue of territorial overlap by negotiating an overlap resolution boundary (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016) among themselves.…”

“…In the context of territorial negotiations between Indigenous nations and the federal and provincial governments, the issue of overlapping territories is problematic since each Indigenous nation must, according to the federal government's Comprehensive Land Claims Policy , demonstrate an “exclusive” occupation of the territory (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016). In this context, the federal and provincial governments are suggesting to First Nations that they resolve this issue of territorial overlap by negotiating an overlap resolution boundary (Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012; Samson 2016) among themselves. It is obvious that, during this negotiation process, the various levels of government are compelling the Indigenous nations present at the negotiating table to frame their claims within fairly narrow boundaries, constraining them to appropriate and use discursive strategies specific to ethno‐territorial state nationalism (see Figure 1) (Sletto 2009; Thom 2009, 2014, 2015; Nadasdy 2012; Palmer 2012).…”

Governance as a driver of change in the Canadian boreal zone1

“…In other parts of the boreal zone, agreements under the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (CLC 1973) have been made or are being negotiated (INAC 2009;Samson 2016). The CLC provides a framework for treaty renegotiations (modern day land claims) between First Nations and the Crown where Aboriginal title has not been addressed through treaty or where there are gaps in existing treaties (Sawchuk 1982;Alcantara 2007;Samson 2016).…”

“…In other parts of the boreal zone, agreements under the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (CLC 1973) have been made or are being negotiated (INAC 2009;Samson 2016). The CLC provides a framework for treaty renegotiations (modern day land claims) between First Nations and the Crown where Aboriginal title has not been addressed through treaty or where there are gaps in existing treaties (Sawchuk 1982;Alcantara 2007;Samson 2016). These modern-day agreements give First Nations slightly more decision-making authority over resource development on their settlement lands unlike the historic treaties, and in total 26 agreements have been completed, such as with the Innu in Labrador, the James Bay and northern Quebec Cree, and the Umbrella Framework Agreement in the Yukon.…”

“…However, the CLS process is unwieldy and requires extinguishment of Indigenous peoples' inherent rights, resulting in a reluctance of many communities to undergo the process (McIvor 2018). For example, three Cree bands in Northern Quebec have had their land rights extinguished after CLC negotiations between the Crown and other nearby Indigenous groups (Samson 2016).…”