Editor’s Note: The following article was compiled from several government sources and is updated yearly. It is included here to provide a brief introduction to Aboriginal land claims for persons not familiar with them.

A Brief Overview
In Canada, the common law concept of Aboriginal rights and title has been recognized by the courts. The existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal people have also been recognized and affirmed under section 35 (1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The evolution and development of the federal government’s land claims policy has been closely linked to court decisions. The first claims policy statement in 1973 was initiated by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (the 1973 Calder decision), which acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal title in Canadian law. In order to address uncertainties created by the decision, the federal government announced its intention to negotiate claim settlements. As the policy developed, claims were divided into two types:

• comprehensive claims – based on the concept of continuing Aboriginal rights and title that have not been dealt with by treaty or other legal means; and
• specific claims – arising from alleged non-fulfillment of Indian treaties and other lawful obligations, or the improper administration of lands and other assets under the Indian Act or formal agreement

In recent years, an unnamed third category of claims has developed to deal with Aboriginal grievances that fall within the spirit of the comprehensive and specific claims policies, but do not meet strict acceptance criteria.

Comprehensive Claims
The primary purpose of comprehensive claims settlements is to conclude agreements with Aboriginal groups that will resolve the legal ambiguities associated with the common law concept of Aboriginal rights. The objective is to negotiate modern treaties which provide clear, certain, and longlasting definition of rights to lands and resources.

Negotiated comprehensive claim settlements provide for certainty for governments and third parties in exchange for a clearly defined package of rights and benefits for the Aboriginal beneficiaries codified in constitutionally protected settlement agreements. Comprehensive claim agreements define a wide range of rights and benefits to be exercised and enjoyed by claimant groups. These may include full ownership of certain lands, guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights, participation in land and resource management throughout the settlement area, financial transfers, resource revenue sharing and economic development measures.

If a national park is established in a settlement area through the claim process, the claimant group continues to exercise its traditional harvesting activities within this protected area. As well, a management board may be established, with representation from the Aboriginal community and government, to advise the Minister on the management of the national park. Finally, the land claim agreement sets out what economic opportunities associated with the national park will be enjoyed by the claimant group. These may include employment provisions and contracting opportunities.

Significant amendments to the federal comprehensive claims policy were announced in December 1986, following an extensive period of consultation with Aboriginal people. Key changes to the policy included
the development of alternatives to blanket extinguishment of Aboriginal rights as well as provision for the inclusion in settlement agreements of offshore wildlife harvesting rights, resource revenue-sharing and Aboriginal participation in environmental decision-making. The 1986 policy also provides for the establishment of interim measures to protect Aboriginal interests during negotiations, and the negotiation of implementation plans to accompany final agreements.

The 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw has initiated calls from within Aboriginal communities to once again review the comprehensive claims policy. The Delgamuukw decision is the first comprehensive treatment by the Supreme Court of Canada of Aboriginal title. Self-government negotiations may take place parallel to, or at the same table as, the comprehensive claims negotiations. The federal government is prepared to consider constitutional protection of certain aspects of self-government where the parties to the agreement concur. Self-government must be negotiated in keeping with the 1995 Framework for the Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiations of Self-Government policy.

Specific Claims and Treaty Land Entitlement
Specific claims relate to the fulfillment of treaties and to the federal government’s administration of Indian reserve lands, band funds and other assets. The government’s primary objective with respect to specifi c claims is to discharge its lawful obligations to First Nations.

Treaty Land Entitlement (TLE) is a large category of claims that relate primarily to a group of treaties that were signed with First Nations, mainly in the prairie provinces. Not all these First Nations received the full amount of land promised. Claims from First Nations for outstanding entitlements are categorized as TLE claims and are handled separately from other specific claims.

Other Claims
The federal government is reaching or negotiating settlement of a number of other Aboriginal grievances, which have sometimes been referred to as claims of a third kind. These grievances fall within the spirit of the comprehensive and specific claims policies, but do not meet strict acceptance criteria.

Deh Cho
After the failure of the Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement in 1990, the Dehcho First Nations (DFN) requested the establishment of a Deh Cho Territory and their own process to deal with the Crown. The Deh Cho Process is the governance, lands and resources negotiations among federal and territorial governments and the DFN. Negotiations have resulted in a Framework Agreement and an Interim Measures Agreement.

The Framework Agreement sets out the scope, process, topics and parameters for negotiation of an agreement-in-principle and a final agreement. The Interim Measures Agreement provides for participation of the DFN in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management regime; a regional land use planning process that will facilitate resource development; an interim management arrangement for Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada; and interim land withdrawals and the negotiation of a resource development agreement.

Northwest Territory Métis Nation
In 2002, this group, formally known as the South Slave Métis Tribal Council, changed its name to the Northwest Territory Métis Nation. When the Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement failed to be ratified by a majority of the Aboriginal people of the Mackenzie Valley in 1990, the federal government decided to enter into regional claims in this part of the NWT. However, in the South Slave District, the Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene opted to seek fulfillment of their treaty land entitlements rather than enter into a regional comprehensive land claim. This left some Métis in the area without a vehicle to press for their concerns.

The then Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada offered to enter into a non-rights based process with the Métis of the South Slave District to deal with their concerns. A Framework Agreement was signed in August 1996 that outlines a twostage negotiation process – land and resources and, after the signing of an agreement-in-principle, negotiation of self-government issues. In 2006 the Main Table reached agreement on 62 key outstanding issues, clearing the way for the drafting and review process for chapters of the Agreement-in-Principle.

Akaitcho Treaty 8
In 2000, negotiations began between government and the approximately 2,000 Akaitcho Treaty 8 Dene who assert traditional use of lands primarily south and east of Great Slave Lake, and north-easterly as far as the Nunavut boundary. After a break in 2002, negotiations resumed in January 2003, with emphasis on lands and governance issues and are progressing.

New Parks North Home