I notice that none of Quebec or Labrador is under treaty. I know that in BC there is an active treaty process. Presumably the Supreme Court's Delgamuk decision, recognizing Aboriginal title, and subsequent decisions, apply to Quebec and Labrador. What is the policy of the governments of Quebec and N&L on this issue? What is the position of the different Aboriginal nations and groups?
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202
posted 10 March 2005 02:36 PM
I'm not sure but I thought the Accord Baie des Braves was a modern treaty. It might not be considered comprehensive enough to be considered a concession of title. There was also the recent Nunatsiavut agreement in Labrador. IIRC, the general legal concensus is that everything not covered by treaty can generally be regarded as unceded title the same as in BC.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621
posted 10 March 2005 03:59 PM
Yes, sorry. My ignorance. Most of the "Rupert's Land" territories given to Quebec early last century were covered by 1975 and 1978 treaties. There is also the Nisga'a treaty in BC, a comprehensive Yukon treaty, and several treaties in the northern Mackenzie region and the region between Great Bear and Slave lakes.
But the territory of traditional "Lower Canada", as well as all of Labrador, is not covered.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
Email this thread to someone!
posted 10 March 2005 02:30 PM
