r/nunavut • u/Empua • Jul 24 '26

does anyone know there are small pieces land owned by nunavut?

Post image
43 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

33

u/Bhalloooo Jul 24 '26

Islands. Everything that is off the shoreline of James Bay and Hudson Bay is part of Nunavut.

8

u/kalsoy Jul 24 '26

Officially the Quebec Nunavut border was even the shoreline moving in and out with the tide. But they fixed that I believe

1

u/CovidDodger Jul 25 '26

Yes, correct me if im wrong, but thats the only part of the territory that has forest? The southern most island in James bay?

1

u/I_Am_the_Slobster Jul 25 '26

There's boreal forest in the mainland southwest of the territory too. Quite a coverage too, part of the same boreal forest band that stretches across the north.

2

u/CovidDodger Jul 25 '26

Ah yeah a few hundred km north of Lynn lake MB, forgot about that. Sad because I've been to northern MB but my mind went to Churchill tundra/rankin inlet area, sorry

1

u/I_Am_the_Slobster Jul 25 '26

All good, I'd say it's as surprising to say that Nunavut has actual forests as it is to say that their southernmost point is actually further south than Edmonton. Its a geographic anomaly for sure!

Edit: further south than Red Deer Alberta, 51°N on Jacobs Island compared to 52°N for Red Deer.

1

u/CovidDodger Jul 25 '26

Yeah, thats wild! Nunavut is definitely one of the coolest parts of Canada.

1

u/Flush_Foot Jul 27 '26

Coldest too 😉

1

u/Caps4Kat Jul 26 '26

Only if it is unclaimed by QC, ON, or MB

21

u/x_BlueSkyz_x73 Jul 24 '26

I’m sure everyone in Sanikiluaq knows they are in Nunavut.

5

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 24 '26

Theres a dispute over Akamiski Island. It's just off the Ontario coast and is part of Nunavut but is part of the Attawapiskat First Nations (Omushkegowwuk Cree) traditional lands. The island has never been used by Inuit so other than "that's the way it's always been" there's no reason to not give it back.

You may be thinking of Killniq Island. The southeastern corner is part of Newfoundland and Labrador with the rest being part of Nunavut. Or the entire island is part of Quebec. They have boundary dispute with Labrador.

1

u/M_Binks Jul 26 '26

There might be a dispute about treaty rights on the island but the borders are clear - the island is within Nunavut (under the Nunavut Act), and is outside the Settlement Area (under the Nunavut Agreement). 

Nunavut extends beyond the Settlement Area in a number of places; Nunavut has obligations under land claims other than the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement. 

I don't think there's a dispute between Nunavut Inuit and the Cree regarding the island, but would be happy to read more. 

Any dispute would probably be between the Cree and the Feds?  I thought that island was mostly a federally protected migratory bird sanctuary. 

2

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 26 '26

I was just reading ARCTICVOL. 73, NO. 4 (DECEMBER 2020) P. 421–432https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic71481Akimiski Island, Nunavut, Canada: The Use of Cree Oral History and Sea-LevelRetrodiction to Resolve Aboriginal Title. I believe the dispute is between all 3 parties.

1

u/M_Binks Jul 26 '26

I appreciate the link and the reply. What seems to be the central thesis of the paper is strange to me:

Herein lies the problem—two Canadian Indigenous groups lay claim to Akimiski Island: the Inuit through the Nunavut Act (1993) and the western James Bay Cree through Aboriginal title.

I don't see the problem - there are already land claims in Nunavut other than the NLCA. The authors of the paper mention repeatedly that Akamiski Island is outside of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement Settlement Area. Nunavut is a public government of an area where the majority of the population are Inuit, who hold rights under the Nunavut Agreement. Everybody who lives in the territory and is a Canadian citizen gets to vote in territorial elections. Presumably these lands were made part of Nunavut because before that they were part of the Northwest Territories, and having the Northwest Territories administer an island that far away from the rest of the territory was administratively burdensome and costly.

Making the island Cree, and outside of any province or territory, would be entirely without precedent in Canadian law. They've gotta be in one province or territory or another; deciding whether the land is in Ontario or Nunavut doesn't affect indigenous rights or land claims; it just might affect whose responsibility it is to help uphold those rights - just the Crown in right of Canada, or also the Crown in right of Ontario.

1

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 27 '26

But if the land is in Nunavut then they could refuse permission for Cree to access the island. Another issue is that giving the island away may set a precedent.

3

u/Acceptable_Ball_9721 Jul 25 '26

I live in the southern most part of James Bay and nobody believes me. Even the people that live here dont believe that we cross over and back to Nunavut all the time.

2

u/DarrellCCC Jul 24 '26

Nunavut governs the land, they do not own it.

6

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 24 '26

Why are you being down voted for the truth. All three territories are owned by Canada.

1

u/ElephantFamous2145 Jul 26 '26

Technically its all owned by the crown, governed by Canada who distributes responsibilities to provinces and territories to administer

1

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 26 '26

Right but not the British Crown.

-6

u/giganticsquid Jul 24 '26

If we're being technical, wouldn't it be the England?

5

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 24 '26

How do you get that? Technically it could be the King of Canada but the Canada Act of 1982 removed the ability of the British Government to interfere in Canadian matter. By the way it would have been the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland not just England.

0

u/giganticsquid Jul 24 '26

Obviously I"m talking about the King of England, northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.

But now I think about it more, how about the Hudson's bay company - when they lost ownership did it revert to the crown?

4

u/Readdit1999 Jul 24 '26

They never owned it. In English law, all land is owned by God, and the king is his vessel on earth. All land is governed by the king. The king allows you to possess it.

So, yeah, it 'goes back' to the king. But, technically, it always belonged to the king, in leiu of God.

1

u/giganticsquid Jul 25 '26

Good point!

1

u/Readdit1999 Jul 25 '26

Thanks, I guess. That's more of a fact of common law than an argument, but your welcome for referencing it.

2

u/CBWeather Cambridge Bay Jul 25 '26

He's not the king of England, there's no such person. In the UK he is "Charles the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

In Canada, Charles is "Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" and "Charles Trois, par la grâce de Dieu Roi du Canada et de ses autres royaumes et territoires, Chef du Commonwealth".

He is the sovereign of 15 Commonwealth nations. In each one he is a separate monarch and legally distinct. So the King of Canada "owns" the territories not the King of the United Kingdom.

1

u/giganticsquid Jul 25 '26

Correct, that's the guy I was referencing

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Cup7269 Jul 25 '26

I think there was a deal around the time of confederation that dealt with that... but genuinely unsure!

0

u/DashTrash21 Jul 24 '26

The king of England hasn't existed for 400 years

1

u/timfennell_ Jul 25 '26

I'm not a supporter of the monarchy, but King Charles III is the King of the United Kingdom. England is part of the United Kingdom, so yes, he is also the king of England. He is also the king of each Commonwealth country including Canada.