LETTER TO THE EDITOR — Unsettled land claims in Labrador cause concern for Quebec natives

I couldn’t agree more with the last sentence in the editorial of Feb. 24 entitled “Footprints over Voisey’s Bay,” which states: “Native groups elsewhere in Canada should, in the spirit of generosity and brotherhood, wish [the Inuit and Innu of Labrador] well.” I wish nothing but the best for those aboriginal groups in Labrador that are now negotiating for their rights.

But good wishes are just that, and overlap is overlap. Wishing people well does not solve our overlap claims to certain stretches of Labrador. Here is the problem: When we settled our claims in the James Bay Agreement of 1975, it was only [with respect to] mainland Quebec. Two important areas of use and occupancy of Nunavik Inuit were left unnegotiated and unsettled for a number of reasons, one of which was because the areas happened to be in other jurisdictions — offshore and northern Labrador.

We attained agreement with the Inuit of Nunavut on areas of overlap in certain offshore areas in 1992. We have been in negotiations with the government for the past three years for that part of the offshore area in which we have extensive aboriginal rights and interests.

We researched and documented our people’s traditional, aboriginal use of Labrador and submitted a claim to the Federal Claims Office in 1987. This claim was validated and formally accepted for negotiation on June 23, 1993.

We are not coming in from left field, nor are we making this up as we go along. The federal government has recognized and confirmed this in writing.

That the government of Newfoundland has chosen to be utterly intransigent and bull-headed about this issue is unfortunate. Its determination to exclude the Nunavik Inuit in any negotiation to settle the overlap has been a classic display of stubbornness. You find no fault with the government’s stance and I don’t deny your right to hold such an opinion. But at some point in the time line the government will have to see us. Whether this takes place at the negotiation table or in a courtroom has yet to be seen.

The article’s allusion to our benefits agreement with Falconbridge and your cataloguing of some of our material possessions also does nothing to advance resolution of our overlap claim. We have rights in Raglan and that is why we have an agreement there. Your reference to us claiming mere historic footprints is also off the mark. We have federally recognized and validated claims to northern Labrador. The federal and provincial governments have, under the law, a fiduciary responsibility to us to settle, fairly and equitably, these rights and interests through a treaty. That is worth something to us.

Our economic or political conditions relative to what exists in Labrador should not be a basis in determining how our land claims are settled. We cannot simply erase our valid claims, say it was all a mistake, apologize for the inconvenience and just walk away. Aboriginality does not work that way.

We are not greedy or intent on taking away what little the Labrador people might gain in their negotiations. Neither are we non-entities who have absolutely no case. The sooner these facts are recognized by all concerned, the sooner we can arrive at a solution that is equitable all around.

Zebedee Nungak, President

Makivik Corp., Nunavik, Que.