Jurivision is happy to launch this first visual publication of a legal article from a scholarly journal. This innovative project is the result of a collaboration with the Revue g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de droit, with the financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The production of short visual publications on articles published in the Journal aims to ensure greater knowledge mobilization in law while highlighting the authors who choose to publish their work in the Journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nearly 45 years ago, the governments of Canada and Quebec signed the historic James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with local Cree and Inuit communities. Under this treaty, Indigenous Peoples renounced their rights to a territory covering 1,082,000 square kilometres in exchange for rights and financial compensation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But certain Indigenous Peoples in Quebec still claim ancestral rights over the territory covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. These communities are not signatories of the treaty. However, a federal statute adopted in 1977 to approve and enact the Agreement purports to extinguish all land claims, rights and interests, not only of the Cree and the Inuit who signed and approved the Agreement, but of \u201call Indians and Inuit\u201d in the territory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Professor Ghislain Otis has assessed how this extinctive provision complies with the Canadian Bill of Rights in an article recently published in the University of Ottawa\u2019s Revue g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de droit. In this video, Professor Otis closely examines the claims of the non-signatory Peoples and outlines the basis for his legal analysis. He concludes that the federal statute enacting the James Bay Agreement violates the Bill of Rights by unjustifiably depriving members of non-signatory communities of their right not to be subjected to racial discrimination in the enjoyment of their property. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This <\/span>vi<\/span>deo<\/span> <\/span>was<\/span> <\/span>produced<\/span> in collaboration <\/span>with<\/span> the <\/span>University<\/span> of <\/span>Ottawa<\/span>\u2019s<\/span> <\/span><\/span>Revue g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de droit<\/span><\/span>,<\/span><\/span> <\/span>with<\/span> <\/span>financial<\/span> <\/span>support <\/span>from<\/span> the <\/span><\/span>Social Sciences and <\/span>Humanities<\/span> <\/span>Research<\/span> Council<\/span><\/span><\/a> (SSHRC)<\/span>. The <\/span>research<\/span> <\/span>upon<\/span> <\/span>which<\/span> <\/span>this<\/span> article <\/span>is<\/span> <\/span>based<\/span> <\/span>benefited<\/span> <\/span>from<\/span> the <\/span>financial<\/span> support of the Canada <\/span>Research<\/span> Chairs program. The full <\/span>text<\/span> of <\/span>the article by <\/span>Professor Ghislain Otis <\/span>is<\/span> <\/span>available<\/span> on the \u00c9rudit, <\/span>Soquij<\/span> and <\/span>HeinOnline<\/span> <\/span>websites<\/span>.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n