Current ads
Jobs
Tenders
Notices
General

Click below

October 9, 1992

Many younger Inuit denounced the Inuit land claims agreement as a sell-out to the federal government during the 1992 ratification campaign, saying the rights and benefits written down in the agreement weren't worth the surrender of their aboriginal title. But TFN officials, fearful that a No vote might kill the Nunavut process, defended the Nunavut agreement by saying that it provides Inuit with decision-making power over all of Nunavut. To this day, however, some Inuit still believe that the Nunavut land claim agreement was a sell-out.

Rough ride for TFN agreement in Iqaluit

JIM BELL
Nunatsiaq News

IQALUIT — The Nunavut land claim agreement got a rough ride at a public meeting in Iqaluit this week.

But officials with the Tunavik Federation of Nunavut still believe a majority of Inuit will vote for it on November 3, 4 and 5.

James Eetoolook, TFN's acting president, said that throughout the marathon ratification tour, in which officials from TFN, the federal government, and the Inuit Ratification Committee are visiting every community in Nunavut, beneficiaries have always asked hard questions about the deal at public meetings.

But after people get more information, most are likely to say they'll vote Yes, Eetoolook said.

Other TFN officials agreed with Eetoolook. "I believe the Yes vote will be the majority," said TFN consultant Paul Quassa at the end of the gruelling six-and-a-half Iqaluit meeting.

But speakers, most of them younger people, denounced the land claim deal as a sell-out to the federal government.

"The way I see it, this is not an agreement, but something being pushed on to us by the federal government," Iqaluit resident Joe Kunuk said through an interpreter. "We only see in here what the federal government wants."

Surrender clause attacked

Kunuk attacked the surrender clause, under which Inuit would give up aboriginal rights to Nunavut lands and waters, and the certainty clause, a set of words in the agreement saying Inuit agree not to pursue any more land claims in the future.

Federal negotiator Tom Molloy had explained earlier that aboriginal land rights, often called "aboriginal title," are still undefined in Canada.

"It is not written down anywhere what this title means," Molloy said. He said that in the 1979 Baker Lake court case, a federal court judge had ruled that Inuit had hunting rights, but did not own the land. So the land claim agreement provides the definition that is now lacking, Molloy said.

"Government gives up something to Inuit; Inuit give up something to government," Molloy said. "It means Inuit rights are written down for the first time. In exchange Inuit agree not to claim more rights. The only rights Inuit give up are to land and water."

But Kunuk drew a round of applause when he said, "There's nothing undefined about aboriginal rights. To an Englishman, they're not rights. When Christopher Columbus took what was not his to take, he didn't ask about aboriginal rights."

Kunuk, like other speakers, referred to a recent aboriginal rights decision by the Australian high court — the Mabo case — which said legal decisions based on racial discriminations are not valid.

This implies that the idea of Inuit land rights being "undefined" is also discriminatory. Kunuk implied that if that idea is discriminatory, then so is the land claim agreement, since the exchange of "rights" that is at the heart of the deal is based on a discriminatory assumption.

Ottawa gave in to Inuit demands

But Molloy denied that the federal government is trying to impose an agreement on Inuit.

"If the federal government got what it wanted and it was pushing it down people's throats, would it have taken 16 years? Would it be holding a ratification vote with a requirement that it be supported by 50 per cent plus one in each region?"

And Molloy said that over the 16 years it took to finish the land claim deal, the government gave in on several key issues.

For example, the government at first insisted that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board should only be an advisory body. But because Inuit wouldn't settle for less than decision-making powers, the board and other management boards now have decision-making powers.

The federal government also insisted that offshore areas are non-negotiable, Molloy said. But because Inuit negotiators fought for it, the offshore is now part of the Nunavut settlement area and Inuit will have powers to manage it.

Lastly, he said the federal government insisted that the creation of Nunavut not be included in the land claim. But by agreeing to the inclusion of Article 4, which makes provision for the Nunavut accord, Ottawa made a major concession to Inuit, Molloy said.

"From 1979-1988, the government said no to Nunavut. Inuit said there would be no deal without Nunavut. And on the last day, it was linked to the claim."

As for the recent Australian court case, "It's Australia that is catching up to Canada," Molloy said.

Which bannock tastes the best?

Other Iqaluit residents complained that the debate has been too one-sided.

"If I was to make two bannocks and only put one of them out without putting out the other one, I am sure everyone would say that's the one that tastes the best," Jeela Palluq-Atagoyuk, a teacher at Inuksuk High School, said through an interpreter.

Palluq-Atagoyuk said that when she asked her senior high school class about how they planned to vote, they all said they planned to vote Yes. But when she asked them why they were voting Yes, they couldn't answer the question — because the only people they've heard from are on the Yes side.

"The youth need to hear about the pros and cons of the agreement," she said.

Another Iqaluit resident, Saali Peter, said the No side should get money to help to promote its point of view.

Iqaluit MLA Dennis Patterson plunged into the debate by saying he recommends that his constituents vote Yes. That opinion is based on his long involvement with land claims and constitutional development issues, he said.

"All the members of the Legislative Assembly have decided that this claim should go ahead. But it's not because we're sheep, blindly following the words of TFN. I don't feel it's wrong for an elected leader to take a stand," Patterson said.

All MLAs back deal

All Nunavut MLAs, along with ITC President Rosemarie Kuptana and the presidents of the three regional Inuit associations have signed an open letter urging Inuit to say Yes to the land claim.

But Patterson was heckled by Iqaluit resident Jacopoosie Peter when he tried to explain himself at the start of the meeting.

"Go stay with your own kind. Shut up," Peter shouted.

But Patterson said he was elected to represent the constituency of Iqaluit and that he has a right to express his opinions.

He went on to say that the success or failure of the land claim deal will depend on how Inuit use it. He said if Inuit get involved, and make sure that competent people are involved in managing the claim, then it will be a success.
He said the compensation money — $1.14 billion to be paid out to Inuit over 14 years — should not be underestimated. "A billion dollars is some kind of power. If you've got a billion dollars. people pay attention to you."

While Patterson admitted that accepting the claim carries risks, to say No to it also carries a great risk. "I'm not going to sit here and say everything is going to come out okay. But there is a risk with saying No as well — the government will continue to impose its will on the people of the North."

Molloy also said that saying No would leave Inuit with no power.

"You can have your undefined aboriginal title — and government will continue to make decisions about Inuit land against your will," Molloy said.

However Jacopoosie Peter suggested that Inuit might be better off without the agreement, and should "work hard by ourselves without getting help from others."

The legend of Kiviuq

Peter cited the legend of Kiviuq, the little orphan boy who overcame adversity to become a great hunter.

"Kiviuq was a very powerful individual, even though he went through rough waters and people did a lot of things to him," Peter said through an interpreter. "But he got stronger and stronger. We have to think about this because we're in a state of hardship now."

But Paul Quassa responded by saying that a No vote means more of the same — and will result in the federal government continuing to wield all the power. "We're told that we have aboriginal rights, but right now we do not have any decision-making power," Quassa said through an interpreter.

And James Eetoolook, who had opened the meeting with a long description of all the powers and benefits that Inuit will get from the agreement, said, "Our first priority is not the money, it's the power of self-determination."

But other speakers said provisions in the deal aimed at promoting Inuit employment and business opportunities may not be strong enough, and that being a majority in Nunavut may not guarantee that Inuit will have real power.

"While you're here, take a walk around Iqaluit," Lazarus Arreak said through an interpreter. "I would like you to see who runs the taxis, the businesses, the construction companies. To this day, I've never seen an Inuk MLA. How can we assume that things will get better if we form the majority?"

Eetoolook closed the meeting with an appeal to traditional values. "When we go through hard times, we always overcome it. We have never turned away."

Advertising
Specs, rates,
& maps
Multi-paper
buying services
About the market
E-mail ad dept

More Information