Feds aim to introduce new form of extinguishment
Richard Gleeson
Northern News Services
Yellowknife (Dec 18/00) - The federal government is planning to use the Dogrib Final Agreement to introduce a new form of extinguishment it hopes will be more palatable to aboriginal groups across the country.
Instead of demanding the Dogribs surrender or extinguish their aboriginal rights when they sign a final agreement, the government will insist the first nation not exercise any rights not included in the agreement.
The new technique, detailed in a confidential federal cabinet document obtained by News/North, would have almost the same effect as extinguishment in that it would make land claim agreements final regardless of future court decisions regarding aboriginal rights.
Patrick Scott, who represented the territorial government at the Dogrib negotiating table, said passages of the document read to him typify the lack of federal flexibility on 'finality'.
He summarized the federal position as, "You accept this and shut the door on the future or you get nothing."
But the federal negotiator on the Dogrib claim, Jean-Yves Assiniwi, said the government needs some assurance agreements it signs are binding.
"Do you think governments would ever agree to exchange land and money for nothing?" he asked, rhetorically.
Assiniwi said he is sure the new technique has not been presented to cabinet. The document obtained by News/North is entitled 'Approach for dealing with Section 35 rights, Ministerial Recommendations to Cabinet' and dated Nov. 24.
The federal presently government insists aboriginal groups give up their constitutional rights when signing a land claim agreement to make sure the agreement is final, and not subject to future rulings on aboriginal rights by the courts.
The new technique distinguishes between land-based and other aboriginal rights guaranteed by Sec. 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982.
The Dogribs would be required to give up any land-based rights (eg. fishing, hunting, trapping, non-renewable resource development) not included in their agreement.
Any right that is not land-based (eg. self government, the right to sue for past injustices) could not be asserted "in any way that would be inconsistent with any provision of the Dogrib Agreement."
Scott said the wording used to describe the technique will be very difficult to convey to the Dogrib, many of whom count english as their second language.
"That's complex legal language to make sure there are no cracks," Scott said.
Chief Dogrib negotiator John B. Zoe questioned the authenticity of the cabinet document and refused to comment on the new techniques.
"I don't have any comment on a paper I haven't seen," said Zoe.
