Land Claims Agreement Significance

Final Agreements provide security with respect to the ownership and management of lands and resources, as well as the exercise of federal, provincial and First Nation governmental powers and authorities. They define the contractual rights negotiated with the First Nation, create binding obligations and obligations for both parties to the negotiations, and can be consulted by all persons. The rights and benefits of the treaty relate to land, resources, tax regimes and self-government. Gemeinden : Albany, Aroland, Attawapiskat, Lac Bearskin, Beaverhouse, Brunswick House, Cat Lake, Chapleau Cree, Chapleau Ojibway, Constance Lake, Deer Lake, Eabametoong, Flying Post, Fort Severn, Ginoogaming, Hornepayne, Kasabonika Lake, Kee-Way-Win, Kingfisher, Koocheching, Lac Seul, Long Lake #58, Martin Falls, Matachewan, Mattagami, McDowell Lake, Mishkeegogamang, Missanabie Cree, Mocreebec, Moose Cree, Muskrat Dam, Neskantaga, Nibinamik, North Caribou Lake, North Spirit Lake, Pikangikum, Poplar Hill, Sachigo Lake, Sandy Lake, Slate Falls, Taykwa Tagamou, Wahgoshig, Wapekeka, Wawakapewin, Webique, Weenusk, Whitewater und Wunnimum Die dreigliedrige AIP, die Lower Churchill IBA und das Upper Churchill Redress Agreement wurden am 18. Novembre 2011 à Natuashish unterzeichnet. Verhandlungen zwischen Kanada, Neufundland und Labrador und Innu Nation über ein endgültiges Landansprüche- und Selbstverwaltungsabkommen sind im Gange. Land claims negotiations began with a focus on wildlife management and harvesting rights. The Inuit wanted wildlife management decisions to be depoliticized and passed on to an independent regulatory body, jointly appointed by inuit and the government. Federal and territorial wildlife and fisheries management agencies have been reluctant to move beyond the creation of advisory councils that would leave final decision-making power and political accountability in the hands of ministers. Until the autumn of 1981, the negotiating teams had developed a potential compromise which would provide for a common wildlife management board, which would have decision-making power over harvesting rules and quotas, but which would be subject to ministerial power to prohibit or repeal decisions based on nature protection and certain other considerations. On this basis, the chief negotiators initialled a sub-agreement on wildlife under the control of the parties. The federal fisheries and environment ministers refused to approve the agreement and it remained suspended until 1986, when the approach was finally accepted with some modifications. The overlap agreement between Labrador Inuit and Quebec Inuit was added to the Nunavik Inuit Claims Agreement in 2008.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a party to the Overlap Agreement and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement. . . .