III. | The Issue of Land Claims |
The Terms of Reference require us to examine the "land rights claims of the Innu of Labrador" in light of the 1993 Report. Unlike the self-government negotiations, which have been placed in abeyance, the negotiations on land claims have continued, despite a series of temporary suspensions, since 1991. Negotiations have been undertaken on behalf of the Innu of both communities, Sheshatshiu and Davis Inlet, by the Innu Nation. The Innu, the Government and the Province are all parties. The negotiations are complicated because some of the areas claimed by the Innu are also claimed by the Labrador Inuit, who have separate land claims negotiations with the Government. Moreover, the Voisey’s Bay and Lower Churchill projects also have land claims implications. This means that there have been separate negotiations between the Innu and the private interests developing Voisey’s Bay and Lower Churchill, as well as discussions on these projects within the land claims negotiations. As a result, land claims negotiations have been divided into parts, with separate discussions centred on reaching mini-agreements on the land issues affecting Voisey’s Bay and Lower Churchill. The Labrador Inuit’s interest in Voisey’s Bay also adds complications. The Innu and the Labrador Inuit negotiated separately on Voisey’s Bay with the private companies planning the development. From the Innu point of view there have been discernible changes in the negotiating process. The Province had historically taken the position that there was nothing to negotiate, that the Innu had no more claim to land than other Newfoundland residents. Today, the Province is going through the process of land claims negotiations seriously.46 Indeed, when in 2000 the Government suspended land claims negotiations with the Innu and seriously contemplated abandoning them, the Province played a key role in ensuring that the Government came back to the table. From the Province’s point of view, resolution of land claims issues is central to its ability to move ahead on important economic development at Voisey’s Bay and Lower Churchill. Federal officials currently express a firm desire to negotiate the land claims with the Innu, but both the Innu and the Province worry whether the Government will in fact be prepared to resolve the land claims issue. The suspension of the negotiations in 2000 was necessary according to federal officials because the Innu claim was not in their view a serious claim. It was simply made up of the best element of every land claim negotiated by Aboriginal people across the country and was "out of the ball park." In addition to the pressure it exerted by suspending the negotiations, the Government stopped payment of most of the Innu negotiating costs in the winter of 2001, and when negotiations recommenced they were with a reduced negotiating budget. Back to top It is widely accepted that the substantially modified proposal put forward by the Innu in 2000 has provided a boost to the negotiating process. Some now describe the process as well on the way. However, agreement has yet to be reached on the issue of the size of the land embodied in the settlement and the amount of the compensation package. Federal officials say that these are commonly the last items to be completed in land claims negotiations. Some federal officials consider that their suspension of negotiations and cutting off of funds to the Innu negotiators was the impetus for the Innu bringing forward a realistic set of proposals. Some Innu consider that the Government used extortionist tactics to force them into adopting different standards for their claim. In their view, the whole notion of Innu claiming land is backwards. It is their land and they are struggling to have the Government acknowledge this. Others, while sharing these views, see the situation from a somewhat different perspective. They recognize the pressure exerted by the Government in the suspension of negotiations and reduction of funds and in the linkages that are used with other issues, such as registration, relocation and the health crisis in the communities. However, they see the new Innu position as reflecting more an assessment of the needs of their people and the opportunities that they wish to provide for their children. They are trying to be practical and achieve a balance that will maximize the interests of their people rather than stand on principle. It is fundamentally an economic survival issue; in their view, "you can’t eat principles." There is guarded optimism about the process of land claims negotiations, and a belief that an agreement in principle may be very near. All parties recently reached a side agreement on the Voisey’s Bay development. However, the ending of self-government negotiations means that a critical part of any comprehensive land claims settlement — the institutions to administer the new land and rights — is in abeyance while registration and the creation of the institutions required under the Indian Act proceed. Moreover, some federal officials express concern that the resolution of the land claims may cause more problems than it resolves. They query whether the Innu have the capacity to manage the autonomy they will receive over a substantial land territory or the funds that would come with a compensation package. This type of reservation in part fuels apprehensions that the Government is not really prepared to settle a comprehensive land claim with the Innu. In this regard, some Innu are concerned that the completion of the side agreement on Voisey’s Bay, and the prospect of completing one in the future on the Lower Churchill project, will cause the Government to lose interest in completing the full land claims negotiations. The Innu are apparently not prepared to conclude an agreement on Lower Churchill until land claims negotiations are completed. | CONCLUSION 9 There is an opportunity for the Government to reach a comprehensive land claims settlement with the Innu. There is momentum on the Innu side, arising out of their new proposals and the opportunities provided by the Voisey’s Bay development, that will be lost if the Government does not match that momentum. Progress requires a clear commitment by the Government and the early resumption of self-government negotiations. |
Back to top IV. | Canada's International Human Rights Commitments |
The Terms of Reference require us to "review the situation of the Innu in relation to international human rights commitments to which Canada is a party, and in particular with regard to: (a) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(b) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(c) the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(d) the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."
Canada is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities on 26 August 1994, but it has not been transformed into a treaty. Nevertheless, it provides important guidance on the current thinking of states and constitutes part of the broader context for the interpretation of the international covenants.47 Rather than deal with each convention separately, we will consider the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights together, along with the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and then turn to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The provision applicable to the situation of the Innu is found in article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Those articles provide in identical terms: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Back to top The question of who constitutes a "people" is controversial in international law and the scope of the right to self-determination has never been precisely determined. We see no necessity for the purposes of this report to enter this debate. We simply note that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has viewed article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as covering the cultural rights of groups,48 and that the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples relates the right of self-determination specifically to Aboriginal peoples, adopting essentially the language of the international covenants. Article 3 provides: Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
In the context of this report, the question, in our view, is whether Canada’s treatment of the Innu might be viewed as failing to allow them to "freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" as contemplated in article 1 of the covenants and article 3 of the Draft Declaration. Some idea of the extent of this right to economic, social and cultural development may be gathered from the provisions of the Draft Declaration, which refer to the right of indigenous peoples "to participate fully, if they so choose, in all levels of decision-making in matters which may affect their rights" (article 19), the right "to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems" (article 21), and the right to "determine and develop priorities and strategies for exercising their right to development," which includes such matters as "health, housing and other social and economic programmes" (article 23). Furthermore, article 31 recognizes, as an aspect of the right of self-determination, the right to "autonomy or self-government." In short, the general tenor of the right of indigenous peoples to "freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" is that indigenous peoples must be given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own affairs. This means some degree of autonomy and control over matters such as education, language, health, housing, economic development and the governance of their own affairs. There is thus an obligation on governments to ensure that indigenous peoples are able to exercise these rights. It is difficult at the present time to make a definitive determination of whether Canada is in compliance with its international obligations in this regard in respect of the Innu. Much depends on what will happen in the future. Registration is underway and land claims are being negotiated. Whether through these processes the Innu will reach the stage where they will be able to exercise the rights that the international agreements provide remains to be seen. In this regard, there are conflicting indications. The events that are currently occurring could lead eventually to the degree of autonomy and control that Canada’s international obligations require. However, the lack of negotiations on self-government, the apparent reluctance of the Government to move toward Innu autonomy in respect of education and health matters, and what may be a lack of enthusiasm for a comprehensive land claims settlement on the part of federal authorities cast some doubt on whether there is any real likelihood of compliance with these international obligations. Back to top Suffice it to say, if the process that is underway does not lead to the Innu being able to manage their own affairs in respect of economic, social and cultural development, touching such matters as education, housing, health and development, and if the Innu are unable to move to self-government, then Canada will be in violation of the obligations set out in these human rights instruments. In the case of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the primary consideration in dealing with children, as set out in article 3 of the Convention, is that of the "best interests of the child." The article also provides that states have an obligation to "ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being." The Innu claim that the Government has not lived up to its obligations in this regard. They cite the crisis involving gas sniffing by children in Davis Inlet in November 2000. At the time, they claim, Health Canada made a commitment to reach agreement on an appropriate treatment plan for the affected children and to develop a "culturally appropriate family centred treatment plan for both parents and children." However, they claim that once media attention moved away from the gas sniffing incident, the development of a treatment plan got lost in departmental in-fighting over who was to pay, and in a general reluctance to spend more money on the Innu. The point made by the Innu is that the "best interests" of the Innu children and their "well-being" had simply faded into the background.49 It is beyond the mandate of this report to make a full investigation of such allegations. What is clear, however, is that Canada’s obligations as a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child represent a standard to which Canada has an international legal obligation to conform. It is also an appropriate standard for judging Canada’s conduct in the treatment of Innu children. Thus, Canada’s conduct in the treatment of the Innu should be directed to ensuring that it does fall below the standards set out in its international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. | CONCLUSION 10 Unless the Government acts to ensure that the Innu are able to take responsibility for their own affairs and are able to move to self-government, Canada is at risk of violating its international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, in dealing with the children of the Innu communities of Davis Inlet and Sheshatshiu, Canada is obliged under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to have the well-being and best interests of the children as a primary consideration. |
Back to top |
Printable Version
Email This Page
