Machine Translated by Google

Land use planning and the question of cultural

difference in Canada. From invisibility to visibility of
indigenous peoples
Irene Hirt, Caroline Desbiens
In Annals of Geography 2017/6 (No. 718), pages 704 to 727
Editions Armand Colin

ISSN 0003-4010
ISBN 9782200930943
DOI10.3917/ag.718.0704

Article available online at https://

www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de-geographie-2017-6-page-704.htm

Discover the summary of this issue, follow the magazine by email, subscribe...
Scan this QR Code to access the page of this issue on Cairn.info.

Electronic distribution Cairn.info for Armand Colin.

The reproduction or representation of this article, in particular by photocopying, is only authorized within the limits of the general conditions of use of the site
or, where applicable, the general conditions of the license taken out by your establishment. Any other reproduction or representation, in whole or in part, in
any form and in any manner whatsoever, is prohibited without the prior written consent of the publisher, except in the cases provided for by the legislation in
force in France. It is specified that its storage in a database is also prohibited.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Land use planning and the question

of cultural difference in Canada.
From invisibility to visibility of
indigenous peoples
Planning and cultural difference in Canada.
From invisibility to recognition of Indigenous peoples
Irene Hirt
Researcher at the CNRS; UMR 5319 Passages, Bordeaux

Caroline Desbiens
Geography teacher; Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics, Laval University

Summary In Canada, planning has contributed to the dispossession of Aboriginal

societies through the creation of Amerindian “reserves” and other forms
of land and resource management. This article proposes a critical
approach to the concept of planning by considering it as a central device
of social control within the framework of the European colonial enterprise.
He suggests that these colonial foundations of planning are currently
being challenged in Canada by the implementation of shared land
management models between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. It
demonstrates, however, the uneven nature of these social transformations,
by comparing two contrasting situations in Quebec: that of the Crees of
eastern James Bay, who have benefited since the 1970s from significant
prerogatives in terms of development on their ancestral territories thanks
to the signing of a modern treaty; and that of part of the Innu, who,
pending the ratification of such a treaty, must come to terms with the
decisions made by the majority society, relating to the management of the territory and

Abstract State-based planning in Canada has contributed to the dispossession of

Indigenous peoples through the creation of Indian reserves and other
forms of territorial management. This paper offers a critical approach to
the concept of land use planning defining it as a key mechanism of social
control within the European colonial enterprise. It argues that the colonial
roots of spatial planning are currently being challenged in Canada by the
implementation of co-management structures shared by Indigenous and
non-Indigenous actors. It highlights, however, the uneven character of
these social transformations, comparing two distinct situations in the
province of Quebec: the Cree First Nation on the east coast of James Bay
who have, since the 1970s, benefited, from the legal recognition of their
rights over their ancestral territories thanks to the signature of a modern
treaty; and part of the Innu First Nation who, as they are still awaiting the
conclusion of such a treaty, have to contend with the decisions of mainstream society

Keywords land use planning, indigenous peoples, colonialism, Canada, reserve

Native American, Cree Nation, Innu Nation, co-management

Ann. Geo., n ° 718, 2017, pages 704-727, ÿ Armand Colin

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 705

Keywords spatial planning, Indigenous peoples, colonialism, Canada, Indian reserve, Cree
First Nation, Innu First Nation, co-management

1 Introduction

“Today, indigenous communities have to fight to remain relevant on the

environmental, social, political, and economic [...] agendas or they will find
themselves planned out of existence” ( AUBIN, p. XV-XVI).
In the second half of the 20th century , social movements for the rights
of cultural minorities, the liberation of women or the self-determination
of indigenous1
peoples came to question the dominant political order
throughout the world. These struggles have focused on the political
recognition of historically marginalized collective identities, not – or
badly represented within the majority society. Also raising issues
related to the production, control and appropriation of space and
territory, these struggles have inevitably erupted in the field of land use planning.
2
In Canada, if the First Nations have invested in planning, it is
because the land and the territory are at the heart of their collective
survival, and they therefore find themselves directly dependent on the
institutional and state structures exercising jurisdiction in matter.
Planning is also part of the concrete manifestations that make it
possible to measure the degree of political recognition and social
acceptance of the Aboriginal presence within the country (Urbanité,
2010, p. 16; Lane, Hibbard, 2005, p. 172) . In Quebec, it was the “Oka
crisis” in 1990 that revealed the extent of unresolved territorial disputes 3 between non
The Mohawks of Oka and Kanesatake then questioned the expansion
of a golf course and the construction of luxury homes by the
municipality of Oka, this project threatening to encroach on land
claimed by them for nearly of three centuries (Lepage, 2009). These
events degenerated into open conflict and had a knock-on effect for many Quebecer

1 According to the working definition of the United Nations Organization, the indigenous
peoples of the Americas are characterized by their anteriority on the territory compared to
the European arrivals, the experience of conquest and colonization, their marginalization
by the dominant or majority society, and the desire to preserve their collective identity
(Martínez Cobo, 1986, p. 379). It is further recognized that they are distinguished from
other cultural and political minorities by historical ties to their lands and territories (Daes,
2001). In Canada, the term indigenous peoples is mentioned by the Political Constitution of 1982, encompass
2 In Canada, the terms “Amerindians” and “Indians” are gradually being replaced by that of
“First Nations” (“First Nations”), adopted by those concerned themselves, who are thus
seeking to challenge the idea that only two “founding peoples” – either French and English
– are said to be at the origin of the country.
3 Note that the “Indigenous”/“non-Indigenous” dichotomy is used here for convenience of
language, not reflecting the complexity of the identities, people and places that it is
supposed to designate.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

706 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY
, NOT

revealing the existence of First Nations and their land claims.

However, they did not allow them to take the measure of a much quieter
reality: the poverty and social exclusion experienced on a daily basis
in certain “reserves” of the country. Reserves are the portions of land
on which in Canada, as well as in the United States, Native Americans
were settled, most often against their will or as a condition of signing
4
treaties, from the 19th century . In onwards
Canada, .they are now faced with many
problems (shortage and unsanitary housing, absence or inadequacy
of basic equipment, drinking water or electricity, geographical
isolation, etc.), directly or indirectly linked to public planning policies,
and all the more shocking as they prevail in one of the richest
countries in the world (Urbanité, 2010).
However, the picture is not completely bleak. Transformations are
underway in Canada, contributing to a progressive visibility of
Aboriginal peoples in planning and urban planning. That these areas
are part of the country's history of settlement is accepted by a growing
number of researchers and practitioners, who recognize the need to
revise planning practice and theory. This is evidenced by the
establishment of specialized study programs in Aboriginal urban
planning, in partnership with First Nations (Sandercock et al., 2013, p.
48), and the files devoted to Aboriginal themes in urban planning
journals ( Urbanity, 2010; ICU, 2008; 2013). Work recently published by
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers on planning issues in an
Aboriginal context in Canada, but also in the United States, Australia
and New Zealand – countries where similar historical conditions have
prevailed – suggests in addition, the emergence of a new field of
knowledge, gaining legitimacy in professional and academic circles (Barry,
Porter, 2012; Desbiens, Rivard, 2014; Lane, Hibbard, 2005; Jojola, 2008;
Porter, 2010; Rivard , 2013; Sandercock et al., 2013; Sandercock, 2004; Walker et a
Finally, the international recognition of Aboriginal rights over the
past forty years, and its partial translation at the national level in
Canada, have led the federal and provincial governments to grant more
planning prerogatives to Aboriginal peoples. The signing of the James
Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) in 1975,
5
following the opposition of the Crees of eastern James Bay to the
hydroelectric development of the La Grande River (we will come back
to this), was part of the federal policy of "comprehensive land claims" adopted tw

4 The term “reserve” is part of the official terminology enshrined in the Indian Act.
Dating from 1876, this law has undergone numerous amendments since then, but is still
in force today.
5 Derived from the Cree language, the term Eeyou (Eeyouch in the plural) is increasingly
used to designate the Crees of eastern James Bay, as well as Eeyou Istchee to designate
this region. As the Cree government has not yet generalized the use of these terms, we
have kept the names in French in this article, except in cases where the change in nomenclature is of

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 707

years earlier. This aims to strengthen the political and territorial

autonomy of indigenous peoples, first on reserves and then within the
perimeter of what they consider to be their ancestral territories (Rivard,
2013; Rodon, 2003). The notion that guides this new context, and whose
implementation has become clearer over the past forty years, is that of territorial “co-
It implies consultation, exploitation and economic compensation rights
for the Aboriginal peoples , as well as shared responsibilities for the
preservation of natural resources. Some First Nations, preferring to
fight through the legal process, have obtained similar rights from the
Supreme Court of Canada, requiring provincial governments to take
them into account when implementing development projects on their
ancestral territories ( Grammond, 2009, p.947).
This development suggests that we are currently witnessing in
Canada a questioning of the colonial foundations of land use planning.
However, such a hypothesis does not make it possible to understand
the variable nature of the recognition of indigenous rights in terms of
development, depending on local historical heritage, geographical
contexts and regional political configurations. This text therefore
proposes to compare two contrasting situations in Quebec: that,
emblematic, of the Crees who benefited from the signing of the JBNQA,
and that of some of the Innu who have been negotiating such an
agreement for almost forty years with the governments of Canada and of Quebec, wit
In the first part, we will propose a critical approach to the concept
of spatial planning to understand how it operated as a central device
of power within the framework of the European colonial enterprise.
In a second part, we will examine the main conceptual "weapons"
that contributed to the territorial dispossession of Aboriginal peoples
in Canada, and favored one of the first land-use measures of the
the American State and the Dominion of Canada: the creation of
reserve taken by Native American. In the third and final part, we will
see how the Crees and Innu are trying today to regain rights in terms
of territorial planning beyond the reserve, a process whose limits and
advances we will discuss.

2 Spatial planning and the question of difference

cultural

2.1 Organizing and planning the territory: a universal function

“[...] planning by and through the state is only one story among many,
rather than the story” (Sandercock, 1998, p. 28).

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

708 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY , NOT

6
Spatial planning in its current meaning, either as a field of state activity
and a set of professional practices, has as its object the public organization
and production of space through the implementation of policies affecting
urban development and regional, the allocation of collective resources and
infrastructures, zoning and land use. This state planning model , linked to
the rise of Western modernity and the construction of nation-states and
e and XIX
cities in 18th - century Europe , became globalized, particularly in the second
half of the 20th century . century (Escobar,1992; Yiftachel, 1998).

Its predominance tends to make us forget its historical contingency

and the fact that it is only one cultural response among others to the
relationships between societies and environments (Desbiens, Rivard, 2014, p. 100; Po
Other forms of planning preceded the emergence of the modern state, and
continue to exist alongside it, and outside of it, although often deploying
under other labels. Planning can therefore also be defined in the broad
sense as “a universal human function” responding to an anthropological
need to organize and plan collective life (Matunga, 2013, p. 4), in a given
geographical area; this universal function comes in as many forms,
practices and spatial arrangements as there are societies, times or places.

2.2 Planning as a tool of social control

In this respect, planning is undoubtedly a cultural practice,
conveying norms, values and ideologies, while constituting
a form of knowledge-power. This is what the critical
approaches of Foucauldian inspiration, developed in the
1990s, suggest . of its “governmentality” (Foucault, 2004),
in the same way as statistics or maps. Questioning the
universalist “Grand Narrative” of material progress and
the scientific rationality underlying modern town planning
and planning, these approaches underline the double-
edged nature of public planning policies. The latter have
conventionally been seen as part of a progressive societal
project, concerned with the public good and promoting social
justice objectives . Little attention has been paid to their
"dark side", i.e. to their mobilization as a tool of domination,
exclusion and social control, leading to the production of
inequalities and discrimination, particularly of gender,
ethnicity or towards the poor (Escobar, 1992, p. 133; Yiftachel, 1998

6 In French, land use planning is often synonymous with territorial planning or territorial
development. In English, we will frequently speak of town and country planning,
environmental planning, spatial planning, spatial planning, etc.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 709

The influence of these ideas, associated with that of the cultural turn,
of feminist, postmodern and postcolonial theories, has favored a
rereading of the history of planning, revealing its practices of exclusion,
the realities that have been neglected, repressed or under silence and
the role of “invisible” actors (Aboriginals, African Americans, women, gays, lesbians, e
These reinterpretations have also focused on practices of ,
resistance,7 including those of indigenous communities. Far from
being the passive recipients of planning imposed from above, the
latter have asserted themselves as actors capable of negotiating or
opposing state interventions, while practicing their own forms of
planning, despite the discrimination suffered (Hibbard, 2006, p. 88; Lane, Hibbard
Critical thinking has also focused on planning as a device for social
control of minorities in societies marked by deep ethnic divisions
(Yiftachtel, 1995; 1998; Yiftachel, Fenster, 1997). According to Oren
Yiftachel, such a system is characterized by four dimensions: a
territorial dimension (control of land and property to limit their access
to minorities, demographic weakening and brake on the geographic
expansion of the latter); a procedural dimension (process of decision-
making, participation and negotiation of legislation and public policies
excluding or marginalizing certain groups); a socio-economic
dimension ( long-term impacts of territorial planning, resulting in the
dependence of the minority group on the majority group); and a
cultural dimension (repercussions of planning policies on the
production of collective identities through effects of cultural homogenization, repress
Apartheid in South Africa, and the spatial separation of black
populations in Britain and the United States, illustrate these policies of
“containment” and socio-spatial segregation. (Post)colonial countries
such as Canada are also concerned, as development there has created
“ internal border” effects between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals (Yiftachel, Fenste

2.3 Planning: a colonial “spatial culture”?

Finally, critical approaches to planning started from the observation
that in European settlements, the dispossession of indigenous peoples
did not unfold only in the direct, often violent, confrontation between
Aboriginals and colonizers, or in the de facto occupation by settlers of
indigenous lands and territories. Indirect practices, as well as a set of
“spatial power technologies” (Sandercock, 2004, p. 118), or “colonial
technologies” (Matunga, 2013, p. 7; Sandercock, Attili, 2014, p. 60 ) also
contributed to Indigenous dispossession:

7 In the English literature, it is a question of planning “from below” (San dercock,

1998, p. 9), in opposition to the State (counterplanning traditions), or forms of
planning “rebels” (insurgent planning) (Hibbard, 2006, p. 89).

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

710 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY, N° 718 • 2017

land use planning procedures and practices8 private

, property
laws , surveying, cartography and toponymy (Walker et al. 2013;
Sandercock, 2004).
According to Libby Porter, these planning practices were not the
subject of a simple “export” from the metropolis to the British
colonies; on the contrary, they found their inaugural moment in
colonization. In other words, colonialism produced the conditions for
the emergence of modern planning (Porter, 2010, p. 3, and p. 50-51)9 .
This colonial genesis of land use planning was also accompanied by
the production of "spatial cultures", that is, particular ways of knowing,
thinking and experiencing space, diametrically opposed to those of
Aboriginal peoples10 (Porter, 2010, p.76). However, planning practices,
by denying these differences, have not only been complicit in the
injustices committed against Aboriginal peoples, but have also
actively participated in producing them (Lane, Hibbard, 2005; Porter
2010, p. 11-12 and p.76). In Canada – as in the United States, New
Zealand and Australia – these spatial cultures also continue to produce
unjust effects, due to the incomplete nature of recognition policies
towards Aboriginal peoples. This is why Aboriginal planners insist on
the need to decolonize the principles of public action in terms of
planning, while advocating planning and urban planning carried out
"in, for and by" Aboriginal communities (Walker et al. al., 2013, p. 7;
Jojola, 2008), which must be distinguished from dominant practices by taking in

3 The concepts and effects of territorial dispossession

Analysis of the colonial underpinnings of land use planning in Canada

involves a deeper examination of the conceptual “weapons” that
contributed to Indigenous dispossession; these, in turn, make it
possible to understand the production of the material and symbolic
figure par excellence of colonial history and geography in North America: the Ame

8 As planning was not yet a profession in the strict sense of the colonial period, it can however be
postulated that similar intentions, rationalities and technologies were already implemented (Porter,
2010).
9 Porter takes up the hypothesis put forward by Paul Rabinow and James Scott, according to which
the colonies would have constituted laboratories of modernity for Europe: certain ideas of planning
and town planning were experimented there because they could not being in the metropolis (Porter, 2010, p. 43).
10 Schematically, we can say that colonial spatial cultures are based on dualities
characteristic of Western modernity, generating as many “Great divisions” between
culture and nature, humans and non-humans, Us and the Others, etc. They differ from
most indigenous spatial cultures that can be described as "relational", that is to say,
which are part of a continuity between humans and non-humans (plants, animals, rocks, etc.) , livin
(Wilson, 2008, p. 80-125; Poirier, 2008, p. 77); these ideal-types do not exclude, in fact, hybrid
ontologies and cultural interpenetrations (Descola, 2005), due in particular to the processes of
modernization of indigenous societies.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the issue of cultural difference in Canada • 711

3.1 Societies without spatial planning?

“Colonialism did not create order from chaos. Order already
existed” (Matunga, 2013, p.
Societies "without State", "without history", "without writing", "without
maps"... And therefore necessarily also "without regional planning"...
It is inevitably through lack or absence that peoples Aboriginal peoples
of Canada, like other peoples, were characterized by the European
colonial discourse which often made them half-human, half-animal
beings, relegated to a state of nature, the stage of childhood or
prehistory. In doing so, European rhetoric of racial superiority has also
failed to recognize indigenous peoples' forms of social organization and
spatial production, and their degree of sophistication or complexity; in other
words, it obscured the fact that long before colonization, Aboriginal
peoples already had their own institutions, practices and planning or
urban planning systems (Matunga, 2013, p. 30). Obviously, the
instrumental character of this social construction of the “Other” made
it possible to morally legitimize the colonial enterprise, and to monopolize indigenou

3.2 Terra nullius or the constituent principles of colonial property

“Our monument to us is to have left the territory as we received it; the
Incas left stones and pyramids. The Innu, what they left is the
territory” (Évelyne Saint-Onge, 2011)11 .
In fact, no one really doubts the pre-Columbian existence of a myriad of
highly coordinated and planned villages and towns, attested to by the
numerous accounts of the first explorers and “discoverers” of America .
Archeology and history have further shown that the Aztecs and Incas
established urban centers analogous to any European center of the same
period (Jojola, 1998, p. 101). The same is not true, however, for nomadic or
semi-nomadic societies of hunters, fishers or gatherers, including those of
North America. Faced with the absence of constructions or permanent
artefacts, the colonizer only wanted to see empty spaces, to the detriment
of the "plenitude of the landscape" developed by its inhabitants, saturated
with toponyms, portages, gathering sites, burial sites, travel routes, human
and non-human migration networks (Desbiens, Rivard, 2014, p. 101).

Moreover, if the colonial regime had found forms of accommodation for

nomadic territorialities, the nation-state will constantly aim to wipe the slate
clean of what does not coincide with its economic imperatives of exploitation of the territor

11 Meeting of the Friends of Mushuau-Nipi, Rivière George (Quebec), August 2011 (I. Hirt, personal
notes). Évelyne Saint-Onge, originally from the Innu community of Uashat-Maliotenam, played
an important role in Quebec in the fight for the recognition of the rights of Aboriginal peoples
and the rights of women.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

712 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY , NOT

with its territorial model enshrining the principles of exclusivity,

national sovereignty and non-interference. In this new world of
contiguous territorial entities, with less and less transformable and
negotiable borders (Badie, 1995), there is no longer any place for
peoples whose social organization is marked by multiple affiliations. ,
spatial discontinuities, sociabilities and reticular mobilities12 .
The constitution of private property further reinforces the enterprise
of territorial dispossession with regard to indigenous peoples (Porter,
2010, p. 61; Harris, 2004, p. 171). According to the theories of the
philosopher John Locke, then in vogue, only land subject to "work",
recognizable by the presence of fenced plots, domesticated animals
and permanent dwellings, could be considered "property".
private” (Locke, 1802 [1691], chap. IV). Most of the indigenous lands,
not coinciding with this use, were considered to be inappropriately
used, or abandoned (Harris, 2004, p. 170; Porter, 2010, p. 63). This
dynamic of denial will culminate with the creation of reserves in the 19th century

3.3 The Amerindian reserve: a colonial figure par excellence

in land use planning In
North America, until the middle of the 19th century , land was not a
central issue in relations between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals.
However, in the north of Canada, while the fur trade, in which the
Aboriginals occupied essential functions, gave way to the extensive and
industrial development of the territory, the latter were now perceived as
obstacles to the expansion of the ecumene and the pursuit of
colonization (Simard, 2003, p. 23). With the arrival of European
immigrants, the development of agriculture, mining, forestry and
industrial fishing, white society felt increasingly cramped on its land
(Fortin, Frenette, 1989, p. 31; Harris, 2004; Simard, 2003). Unable to
eliminate the “Indian problem”, the nascent states sought to
circumscribe it (Sandercock, 2004, p. 118). Indigenous peoples are
forcibly displaced, settled and placed under house arrest on limited
and dispersed stretches of land. When they are not simply expropriated
through mass slaughter and violence , treaties are signed with them
in which they give up some of their land to live on the remaining portions design
Started around 1850, the movement continued until the end of the 19th century
(Harris, 2004, pp. 168-169). In the United States, approximately three hundred and ten
reserves are created, distributed in more than thirty States, totaling 2.3% of the national territory

12 The thought of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes had a great influence on this “sedentary” ideology.
For him, anyone not attached to a fixed address because of their poverty or their culture
(beggars, vagabonds, nomads, gypsies, pirates, etc.) must be considered a problem for
those in power (2000 [1651]).

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 713

16)13 . and a total area of around 225,000 km 2 (Treuer, 2014, p.

In Canada, there are currently 618 First Nations, spread across
reserves, villages or Indian settlements14. There are about 2,800
reserves, often of small size, and occupying a total area of more than
km of 2,, or about 0.3% of the land mass of Canada15. The 30,000
reserve lands belong to the federal Crown, and the First Nations are
organized into “bands ”16. These administrative units, imposed by
the Indian Act , came to replace the traditional forms of government,
and divide the Aboriginal nations into small groups, often on the basis
of their location rather than their cultural identity (Rodon, 2003, p. 59).
While most reserves are in rural areas, some are in or near urban
centers (for example, the Wendat in Quebec, the Mohawk in Montreal,
or the Musqueam in Vancouver, to name a few).

The creation of reserves is part of a new geography marked by an

“ideology of the border”, crystallizing in a lasting way the limit
between civilization and barbarism in the representations of the
majority. For Aboriginal people, this geography determines the places
where they can still go versus those where they can no longer go
(Harris, 2004, p. 78-79); it engenders a “ prison environment”
expressed by the physical and imaginary enclosure of their universe
(Simard, 2003, p. 27). The hunting, fishing, gathering and logging
rights granted by the treaties on the so-called "ceded" lands were hardly respected

13 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is uncertain of their exact number, and not all of the
564 federally recognized “tribes” have reservations.
14 Source : http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1382972075127/1382972154591, accessed
10.10.2016. It should be noted that the first attempts at sedentarization of the
Amerindians in Canada are older. Work of the Jesuits,
e
among others, they date back
to the 17th century, for example with regard to the “reduction” of Sillery, in Quebec.
Some of the earliest “modern” reserves predate the existence of Canadian
Confederation, particularly in Upper Canada (Harris, 2012). In terms of terminology,
“Indian settlement” is used for communities established on territories that, for various reasons, do not h
Moreover, the term "village" is generally used for the Inuit: although they too have
settled in permanent villages, the latter are not established on reserve territories since
the Indian Act does not concern this population. .
15 Source: http://fnp-ppn.aandc-aadnc.gc.ca/fnp/Main/index.aspx?lang=eng, consulted on
27.02.2016. The figures relating to the number of reserves are approximate, certain
reserve lands having become, within the framework of the signing of modern treaties
and the obtaining of forms of self-government (see below), the property of the signatory
First Nations, as well as the new extensions of land acquired through these negotiations.
A map of First Nations in Canada is available here: https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/
DAM-INTER-HQ-AI/STAGING/texte-text/ai_mprm_fnc_wal_pdf_1344968972421_eng.pdf .
16 “Band” is a “group of Indians” “(a) for whose common use and benefit lands belonging
to Her Majesty were set apart before or after September 4, 1951; (b) for the common
use and benefit of which Her Majesty holds sums of money; (c) declared by the
Governor in Council to be a band for the purposes of this Act” (Indian Act, s. 2(1)).
The “ Band Council” is the governing body of the band, usually made up of an
elected chief and councillors .

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

714 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY
, NOT

Indigenous Peoples in Court, at United States and Canada (Treuer,

2014, p. 114). These lands were also quickly overexploited by white
settlers , preventing Aboriginal people from practicing their subsistence activiti
Finally, the breakdown of traditional trade networks leads to the end
of nomadic or semi-nomadic activities and way of life, while the
quality and size of the reserve lands do not ensure the autonomy of
these small societies. (Treuer, 2014, p. 29; Rodon, 2003, p. 92). The
state project to transform the Aboriginals into sedentary farmers is
also a failure. Also, in the decades following the creation of the
reservations, starvation and malnutrition are widespread, and the
economic dependence of indigenous groups on the majority group is consumm
In reality, the reserves were not designed to last, but as transitory
enclaves aimed at the assimilation and civilization of their inhabitants,
based on the premise that the latter would disappear on their own
(Rodon, 2003 , p.92; Treuer, 2014, p.138). Initially, a whole generation
of Amerindians, brutally cut off from their way of life, found
themselves without prospects, discriminated against and rejected by
the majority society, and deprived of the means to participate in its
economy. From the end of the 19th century , and sometimes until the
1970s in Canada, “reservation” coincided with the sending of several generation
It was assumed that breaking family ties would also break ties to identity
and territory (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996, ch. 10).
However, in the 20th century , and despite the social problems that often
characterize them, reserves, far from disappearing, have also become
places of belonging and sociability (Treuer, 2014, p. 18-20).

4 Crees and Innus of Quebec: the power to develop together

speeds?

It is in connection with this history that the challenge of co-management

in development arises today. In Quebec, as elsewhere in Canada, the
specific context of each community in terms of culture, governance and
relations with the dominant society - all of which are influenced not only
by history, but also by geographical location of different nations – plays a
determining role in territorial co-management models.
While they in no way exhaust the analysis, the Cree and Innu examples can
give us a glimpse of this complexity.
Both the Cree nation and the Innu nation belong to the Algonquian
linguistic and cultural family. The reserves in which they were assigned
territoriality in the e19th
and XX
century represent only an infinitesimal part of the
vast spaces they once roamed to practice their way of life, ensure their
subsistence and participate in the economy of the fur trade. , in which they
occupied leading roles, before its decline. There

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the issue of cultural difference in Canada • 715

To. For a map representing all the Aboriginal nations and villages in Quebec, cf. http://
www.autochtones.gouv.qc.ca/nations/cartes/carte-8x11.pdf (last accessed May 17,
2017).

Fig. 1 Map of the Cree and Innu communities of Quebeca

The Cree and Innu communities in Quebec

forced sedentarization dispossessed both the Crees and the Innu of

control of four key societal resources – space, power, wealth and
identity (Yiftachtel, 1998, p. 401-403) – necessary for any society to
maintain itself in the present and ensure its future. It is therefore easy
to understand their continuous efforts , for several decades, to
succeed in breaking out of the confinement created by this space of
injustice and exclusion that is the reserve, and to regain rights and
prerogatives in terms of decision-making, management and planning on all of their a

4.1 Towards a new model of “co-management” of

the territory Today, the First Nations can exercise forms of
autonomy within the reserves, including in terms of urban planning and deve
However, this autonomy is limited, as the Band Councils have the
power to administer and manage government programs but not to
define their objectives (Rodon, 2003, p. 81). Since 1999, a First Nations
Land Management Regime (FNLM) has also allowed First Nations to
opt out of the Indian Act sections relating to land governance.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

716 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY
, NOT

reserves and develop their own land code17 (ICU, 2008, p. 15). Finally, in
order to compensate for the limited size of reserves and the excessive
financial costs of their expansion, new forms of indigenous participation
in the management of public lands located off reserves – in other words,
on ancestral territories from which indigenous peoples have been
dispossessed – have been imagined (Rodon, 2003, p. 93).
This new model of territorial governance dates back to the 1970s,
when the surge of hydroelectric and mining activities in the north of
the country met with resistance from the Aboriginal peoples. In 1971,
following the announcement by the Quebec government of Robert
Bourrassa to undertake a large-scale hydroelectric project on the La
Grande River, the Crees of Quebec went to court in 1972 to ask for the
work to be stopped. These legal proceedings allowed them to begin
negotiations leading to the signing of the JBNQA, on November 11,
1975, with the governments of Quebec and Canada18. This Convention
is the first “modern treaty ”19 in Canadian history. As mentioned, it is
part of the federal policy of "comprehensive land claims "20 which
aims to strengthen the autonomy of Aboriginal peoples, in particular
through partial enfranchisement of the Indian Act, and to clarify land
rights in the regions, such as Quebec, where ancestral titles recognized
by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 have not been canceled or
extinguished by treaty; such legal uncertainty being seen as a potential
source of social conflict and a threat to investment and economic
development (Rodon, 2003, p. 68; Grammond, 2009, p. 945).

4.2 The Crees of eastern James Bay or the "quiet revolution" of

indigenous power21
The Cree population of Quebec is united within the Grand Council of
the Crees. In 2015, it amounted to more than 18,535 people (SAA, 2015)
distributed in nine villages located on the shores of James Bay and
Hudson Bay (Whapmagoostui, Chisasibi, Wemindji, Eastmain,
Waskaganish), and inland (Nemaska, Waswanipi, Oujé-Bougoumou, Mistissini) (se
The signing of the JBNQA replaced the ancestral territorial rights of
the Crees with a range of new rights, responsibilities and benefits,
including a territorial regime dividing the lands into three categories:
Category I concerns lands owned by the Crees and the exclusive use, and on whic

17 First Nations Land Management Act (SC 1999, c. 24).

18 The JBNQA also concerns the Inuit whose territories were partly affected by the La Grande
project. In 1978, the Naskapi First Nation also adhered to the Agreement, modified within the
framework of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (CNEQ). These aspects are not discussed here.
e century and at the beginning of the XX
e century.
19 As opposed to the historic treaties signed in
the 19 20 “Global Claims”. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. See https://www.
aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100030577/1100100030578 (accessed 05.10.2016).
21 For an in-depth study of this part 4.2. see Desbiens, 2015, chapter 2.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 717

2
established their villages22 ). The other two categories are land
(5,500 km from provincial public lands; on Category II lands, the Crees have
2
exclusive hunting, fishing and trapping rights (approximately 70,000 km);
on Category III lands, which includes all lands in the territory under
agreement not included in the other categories, the Crees have certain
exclusive trapping rights , but also non-exclusive hunting and fishing rights
2
that they must coordinate with the other actors in the territory ) (see
(approximately 277,000 km Figure 2) .
The JBNQA allowed the Quebec government to open northern Quebec
to the development and exploitation of resources. In exchange, the Crees
received significant financial compensation which enabled them to ensure
their own economic and social development, and to move towards self-
government, by taking control of all of their social services (education,
health, etc.), and to provide a guaranteed income for hunters and trappers
who devote themselves essentially to traditional activities of exploitation of
the territory. However, the Crees had to be constantly vigilant to enforce
the agreements. In the early 1990s, in alliance with Canadian and American
environmental groups, they opposed another dam project on the Great
Whale River (abandoned in 1994). In 2002, the signing of the Agreement
concerning a new relationship between the Government of Quebec and the
Crees of Quebec, known as the "Peace of the Braves", put an end to the
legal proceedings launched to protest against the abusive exploitation
activities carried out by logging companies on the territory of Eeyou Istchee.
The Crees were able to demand that any future decision respect their
autonomy, their ability to be part of the entire development process on their
territory, while protecting the environment. They gave their agreement to
the Quebec government for new hydroelectric developments (Eastmain and
Rupert rivers), on the condition of participating in them through partnerships
and job creation; forest development must respect traditional hunting and
trapping activities. If the JBNQA was a powerful catalyst for change, both
economic and social, for the Crees of eastern James Bay, the "Peace of the
Braves" can be seen as its extension because, nearly thirty years later, it
clarifies and sets up more concrete methods for its implementation. In
doing so, it enabled the Crees to become major players in logging and in
decisions regarding hydroelectric, mining or tourism development in
northern Quebec.

In the space of forty years, the Crees have therefore regained control of
their destiny, profoundly modified the political and administrative structure
of the northern part of the province, and established “nation-to-nation”
relations with Quebec. The last step in this evolution is the signing, on July 24, 2012, of an

22 It should be noted that the term “reservation” disappears from the terminology of the Convention, thus reflecting the
change in the governance framework.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

718 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY , NOT

governance in the territory of Eeyou Istchee James Bay, which

transforms the Municipality of James Bay into a joint regional government23 .
It provides for the management and planning of Category III lands
to be carried out by the regional government, while the Eeyou Planning
Commission – the equivalent, for the Cree Nation Government, of a
Regional Commission for Natural Resources and Land (CRRNT)24 –
develops the regional land and resource use plan for Category II
lands. The creation of this joint structure between the Crees and the
other residents of James Bay (the “Jamesians”) is a first in Quebec.
It offers an inspiring model for other regions in Canada where
Aboriginal peoples are the majority but share the territory with non-
Aboriginal communities .

4.3 The Innu's long quest for self-government The Innu

of Quebec number 19,955 (SAA, 2015), living in nine communities
located on the western shore of Lac Saint-Jean (Mash teuiatsh),
on Côte -North (Essipit, Pessamit, Uashat-Maliotenam,
Ekuanitshit, Nutashkuan, Unamen Shipu, Pakuashipi) and
inland (Matimekush Lac John) (see Figure 1).
Negotiations25, begun in 1979 with the Quebec and federal
governments with a view to concluding a modern treaty, were first
conducted under the aegis of the Mamuitun Tribal Council (CTM),
bringing together the First Nations of Mashteuiatsh, Essipit and
Passed. They culminated in January 2000 in the elaboration of a
“Common Approach” for future negotiations. Joined the same year
by the First Nation of Nutashkuan, the CTM became the Conseil tribal
Mamuitun mak Nutashkuan (CTMN) which, in 2004, signed with the
negotiators of Canada and Quebec an Agreement in principle of
general order (EPOG) 26 serving as the basis for the signing of the
future treaty. In 2005, the First Nation of Pessamit withdrew from the
process, leading to a new reorganization of the group which continues
the talks. Now known as Petapan, it brings together the First Nations
of Mashteuiatsh, Essipit and Nutashkuan. The territories concerned
by the draft treaty affect three administrative regions of the province
of Quebec: Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord and Capitale-Nationale
(Quebec and Mauricie). The EPOG provides the Innu with freehold lands on whic

23 http://www.greibj-eijbrg.com/fr.
24 The CRRNTs report to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Land Occupancy (MAMOT)
and constitute regional governance bodies in each region of Québec.
25 For more details on the negotiation process, see Boivin, Hirt, Desbiens, 2017.
26 For a map of the First Nations signatories of the EPOG, in 2004, and the territories then
subject to negotiations, cf. EPOG Annex 4.1 http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/
1100100031951/ 1100100032043#chp19_1 (last accessed May 17, 2017).

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 719

Fig. 2 Map of Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government Territory

The Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

720 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY NOT

will include existing reserves, added contiguous lands, and sites of

historical or heritage significance. On the rest of Nitassinan27, the
Innu will be able to continue traditional hunting, fishing, trapping and
gathering activities for subsistence, ritual or social purposes. They
will also have wildlife harvesting priority over other users (outfitters,
ecological reserves, national and provincial parks, etc.). The EPOG
has the distinction of being the first negotiation between Aboriginal
peoples and provincial and federal governments in Canada based not
on extinction, as the Crees did, but on the recognition of ancestral
rights, the effects and terms of which .
of exercise must be defined by the treaty28 The Innu negotiators
have been confronted since the beginning of the talks with several
major difficulties. For the first time, the negotiation of a modern treaty
concerns a territory whose population is mainly non-Aboriginal. The
Innu have to deal with a multitude of “stakeholders ” and non-
Aboriginal inhabitants, particularly south of Nitassinan, near the St.
Lawrence Valley, historically favored by European colonization. This
is not the case for the Crees, who have remained the majority on the territory of
This is why the EPOG advocates a partnership approach with non-
Aboriginal regional communities and the two levels of government.
Furthermore, while the entire Cree nation was involved from the
start in the negotiation and implementation of the JBNQA, only
three out of nine Innu communities are currently involved in the
ongoing negotiations. In the absence of more "integrated" bodies,
they therefore do not benefit from the same lever of power as the
Crees to influence government decisions, which explains in
particular the fact that the EPOG has not yet been ratified at this
day. Petapan's major challenge is also to convince the members of
the signatory communities to adhere to the treaty which will be
submitted to them by referendum, once ratified by the two levels of
government29. However, the EPOG arouses strong opposition from
some Innu who dispute the power of representation of the Band
Councils to the detriment of the families who have historically
occupied Nitassinan. These opponents also believe that the
territorial rights that will be granted under the treaty are too limited,
part of a new cycle of colonial dispossession of the Innu. In conclusion, while

27 Nitassinan: name given by the Innu to their ancestral territory (beyond the reserve) in northeastern
North America , which means “our land, our territory” in the native language.
28 Due to the evolution of Canadian jurisprudence on the nature and scope of Indigenous land rights,
the Comprehensive Claims Policy is in the process of being renewed with respect to the issue of the
extinguishment of these rights: https ://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1408631807053/ 1408631881247
(last accessed March 6, 2017).
29 At the time of going to press, if there are no obstacles impeding the various stages of ratification of
the treaty, implementation would be scheduled for 2020.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 721

to date only a principle of "real participation" in the decision-making

process, and measures of "accommodation" and
"harmonization" ( financial compensation), which exclude any right
of veto on the part of Aboriginal people, thus giving the Quebec
government has the last word in land and resource management.
Aware of the possibility of rejection of the treaty by the Innu
population, the Band Councils involved in the negotiations
nevertheless deploy a variety of other strategies to encourage the
citizens of their communities to occupy the ancestral territory and
take part in the decisions concerning it. They also seek to participate,
as much as possible, in regional development projects. For example,
the Mashteuiatsh Band Council (Pekuakamiulnuatsh Takuhikan) has
become an important partner at the regional level in areas such as forestry and hyd

4.4 The “visibilization” of indigenous peoples in land use

planning: ruptures and (post)colonial continuities
Putting the situation of the Crees and the Innu into perspective shows
that the “visibility” of Aboriginal peoples in the area of land use
planning and development is uneven. The Eastern James Bay Crees,
thanks to the JBNQA, the Paix des Braves and the creation of the
Eeyou Istchee Baie-James Regional Government, have obtained the
power to decide - jointly with the Canadian State, the provincial as
well as with the Jamésiens – of the future of their territory. Today,
they have full ownership of the reserve space, and manage their
affairs on almost all of their ancestral territory, having the financial
means to do so. They are a successful, but still rare, example of
achieving the self-determination that so many indigenous peoples
yearn for. The Innu, on the other hand, must fight if they want to avoid
finding themselves, quite simply, “ planned out of existence ”, to use
Aubin's formula, in the epigraph of this text; in other words, to avoid
“being organized” by others, as suggested by Hélène Boivin, a
member of the Pekuakamiulnuatsh First Nation who participated in the Innu territori
Still awaiting the conclusion of an agreement, they must deal with a
number of unilateral decisions taken by the majority society affecting
the management of their ancestral territory. Consequently, they
struggle to be fully recognized as a regional interlocutor beyond the space of the re
This differentiated situation from one First Nation to another shows,
on the one hand, that the emergence of an Aboriginal capacity in terms
of development and territorial planning does not necessarily work towards
the improvement of conditions for all. . In fact, each geographical,
historical and political context determines the terms of the relationship between Aborigi

30 On the Mashteuiatsh reserve, the establishment of a land code is also underway.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

722 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY NOT

Clearly, the Quebec state continues to hold its own (colonial) game,
progress for one nation often means a setback for the others.
This is evidenced by the territorial overlaps of the territory agreed to by
the JBNQA with the territories of the Pekuakamiulnuatsh (Ilnus of
Mashteuiatsh), the Atikamekw and the Algonquins, the agreement
having unilaterally extinguished the rights of the latter to the lands they
historically occupied south of the James Bay. Moreover, the JBNQA
has indirectly contributed to producing a two-speed Cree society in
Canada, by ratifying the separation between the Crees of Quebec and
the Crees of Ontario, who can only dream of the political and economic
power enjoyed by their neighbors. As for the EPOG, it contains the risk
of dividing the Innu of Quebec between nations under agreement and
not under agreement, without there being any link with the Innus of
Labrador. On the other hand, however, the situation of the Crees
represents a fundamental historical and symbolic advance for all of the
Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Because it suggests that, in certain
cases, the federal and provincial governments can no longer plan,
manage and develop the territory without taking into account the
presence and territoriality of Aboriginal people. A multi-ethnic regional
government like that of James Bay constitutes a political and territorial
model based on sharing and dialogue, contrary to the colonial model
on which the reserve system is based and which structures space in the form of e
Beyond the specific situation of each Aboriginal people, it is also
the spatial culture underlying the federal policy of “ comprehensive
land claims” that deserves critical examination. To engage in the
negotiation process, Indigenous nations in Canada must demonstrate
their "continued" occupation and use of the land through time-
consuming and costly research (known as "land-use and occupancy
studies ”), despite the ruptures, confinements and relocations that are
the legacy of nearly four hundred years of colonization. In the case of
the Innu, this study, commonly called “the Great Research”, was carried
out in the 1980s at the request of the Attikamek-Montagnais Council (CAM)31 .
The results include the testimony of more than 400 Innu, 17,000 descriptive
files relating to the occupation of the territory, approximately 1,000 maps
and more than a thousand hours of recording32. However, this obligation
to provide “proof” hardly deviates from the colonial logic of terra nullius :
on the one hand, because it casts doubt on the historical presence of
indigenous peoples on the territory; on the other hand, because it denies the cumula

31 Montagnais: name formerly given to the Innu. In 1975, the Attikameks and the Innu joined
together to found the CAM, whose mandate, until its dissolution in 1994, was to promote
the rights of the two nations within the framework of the global territorial negotiation
conducted with the federal and provincial.
32 http://petapan.ca/page/nitassinan, last accessed March 8, 2017. See also Charest, 1982, at this
about.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 723

of colonial dispossession, development and industrial exploitation of

the territory, impacts which nevertheless explain the difficulty for the
indigenous peoples to continue to assert themselves on the territory
and to demonstrate the continuity of their occupation there (Desbiens,
Hirt, Pekuakamiulnuatsh Takuhikan, 2015).
In Quebec, this persistence of a colonial spatial culture is
also found in the dominant ideas relating to the development
of the Quebec territory, conceived on the basis of an abstract
rather than lived geography, extractive activities , roads and
infrastructures often being imagined as " opening up” “empty”
spaces. The most striking example being the "Plan Nord",
launched in 2011 by Liberal Prime Minister Jean Charest: this
vast development program for the regions located north of
the 49th parallel updated the old ideology of the border, while
claiming to involve Aboriginal people (Desbiens, Rivard, 2014,
p. 101). But, faced with this persistence of colonial ideas, it is
probably also the imaginations of the territory and the
otherness of the individuals and groups that make up
Canadian society that need to be modified – and not just those
of political actors. Evidenced by the lapidary formula of a .
young Quebec guide during our visit to the Manic 5 dam, in
2013, in the heart of Nitassinan: "Here, there was nothing",
she announced by way of introduction, “ only the Manicouagan
River which flows to the St. voluntary erasure – of the
territoriality of nomadic societies that prevails in the discourse of Hydro-Q
And yet, it is also clear that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have
partly adopted, willingly or by force, the non-Aboriginal spatial culture.
Both the James Bay Crees and part of the Innu have chosen to participate
in the exploitation and capitalist development of the territory's natural
resources, on the condition that they can simultaneously safeguard their
own conceptions of space and cultural practices in the territory. . The
Mashteuiatsh Band Council, for example, in its policy of cultural
affirmation, starts from the hypothesis that to raise the economic level
of the nation, it is better to participate in development projects initiated
by governments and businesses than to be excluded, if they prove to be
“compatible with traditional activities” (PekuakamiulnuatshTakuhikan, 2005, p. 20).
These compromises bring to light global power relations that remain
largely unfavorable to Aboriginal peoples, but also the fact that in the
context of neoliberal governance, Aboriginal peoples are not passive
actors (Papillon, 2002). It remains to be seen, as Étienne Rivard points
out, whether the ability to develop economic independence by composing

33 Personal notes, C. Desbiens, I. Hirt.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

724 • Irene Hirt , Caroline Desbiens ° 718 • 2017

ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY , NOT

with the logics of the market will truly make it possible, in the long term, to
maintain the traditional ways of life and the relational and community models
to which the First Nations claim to belong (Rivard, 2013, p. 35). But no doubt
it is up to the Aboriginal peoples themselves to judge the relevance and
what makes sense, in their eyes. Provided, however, that the aspirations and
opinions of all the members of an indigenous community can be taken into
account in these choices.

5 Conclusion

The objective of this article was to examine the colonial foundations of land
use planning in Canada, and to see to what extent the current political and
social transformations allow a progressive “visibilization” and emancipation
of Aboriginal people in this field. Through the example of the Crees and the
Innu, we have underlined the advances but also the colonial continuities of
these processes, which are characteristic of (post)-colonial states. Indeed,
while the latter tend to recognize rights, they also seek to reconcile
Indigenous demands with existing institutional arrangements and the
ideological foundations of the modern nation-state, thus continuing to
convey colonial practices and imaginaries (Porter , 2010, p.106).
Our analysis focused on the space of reserves and ancestral territories.
However, dealing with the visibility of the indigenous presence in the fields
of land use planning and urban planning must also take into account the
issues of the right to the city of indigenous peoples, which was difficult to
achieve in the past. frame of a single article. Demographic growth, cultural
assimilation policies and the lack of economic prospects have indeed led a
large number of Amerindians (and Inuit) to move to the city. These migrations,
if they have made it possible to decompartmentalize the space of the
reserves, have not yet called into question the hegemonic imaginaries which
tend to associate the Aboriginal peoples with rurality and to consecrate the
reserves as their "natural environment" (Leclère, 2017 ). Also, the presence
of Aboriginal people in urban areas is a phenomenon whose extent is still
difficult to measure, not to mention the urban planning and development
challenges it entails (Comat, 2012; Lévesque, Cloutier, 2013; Walker, Matunga, 2013).
This would suppose in particular to initiate a reflection in terms of circulations
and relations between rural and urban environments.
Starting from the situation of Aboriginal peoples in Canada, this
article also hopes to have fueled a more general reflection on the
issues of cultural diversity and socio-spatial justice in the field of
planning and urban planning. Because such a reflection concerns all
societies in which cultural or political minorities demand the recognition
of rights and their transposition in the urban, regional or national space (Sanderc
It highlights the question of the participation of individuals or groups

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 725

from diverse cultural and social backgrounds in the production of the

landscapes and territories that concern them, and the role played by
development in the production of territorial models oriented towards
sharing and harmonious cohabitation .

Office 127, Maison des

Suds 12, esplanade des Antilles
University domain 33607
– Pessac Cédex
Irene.hirt@cnrs.fr

Faculty of Forestry, Geography and Geomatics

Laval University, Suite 3185
Abitibi-Price
Pavilion 2405 rue de
la Terrasse Quebec (Quebec),
Canada G1V 0A6 caroline.desbiens@ggr.ulaval.ca

Bibliography

Aubin, A. (2013), “Foreword” in Walker, R., Jojola, T., Natcher, D. (eds.), Reclaiming Indigenous
Planning, Montreal & Kingston, McGill-Queen's University Press, p. xv-xvi.
Badie, B. (1995), The end of territories: Essay on international disorder and the social utility of
respect, Paris, Fayard, 280 p.
Barry, J., Porter, L. (2012), “Indigenous Recognition in State-Based Planning Systems:
Understanding Textual Mediation in the Contact Zone”, Planning Theory, n° 11 (2), p. 170-87.
Boivin, H., Hirt, I., Desbiens, C. (2017) “The land rights of the Pekuaka Miulnuatsh First Nation.
Interview with Hélène Boivin”, Justice spatial/Spatial Justice, n° 11, www.jssj.org.
Charest, P. (1982), “Anthropological research and political context in the Attikamek and
Montagnais milieu”, Culture, n° II (3), p. 11-23.
Comat, I. (2012), “Getting out of invisibility: Understanding the place of the city in contemporary
indigenous territories from a legal perspective”, Géographie et cultures, n° 81, p. 59-76.
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996), Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, Vol. 1: A past, a future, Ottawa, the Commission, 418 p.
Cook, J. (2013), “Honoring Indigenous Urbanism. Renewing Our Determination to Act”, Plan
Canada, no. 53(2), p. 7-13.
Daes, E.-I. (2001), Indigenous peoples and their relationship to the land. Final working document
prepared by the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Erica-Irène A. Daes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21, New
York, United Nations.
Delanoë, N. (2011), ““When the tide goes out, the table is set...” or the contradictions of
development on Amerindian land”, Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, n° 41 (2-3),
p. 201-206.
Desbiens, C. (2015), Power north: territory, identity and culture of hydroelectricity in Quebec,
Quebec, Presses de l'Université Laval, 318 p., trans. from English by G. Deschamps.
Desbiens, C., Hirt, I., Pekuakamiulnuatsh Takuhikan (2015), “Industrial development and
territorial negotiations in Canada: challenges and issues of a new form of treaty” in Bellier, I.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

726 • Irene Hirt Caroline Desbiens ANNALS OF GEOGRAPHY

° 718 • 2017
, , NOT

(ed.), Lands, Territories, Political Resources, Practices and Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Paris,
l'Harmattan, p. 191-208.
Desbiens, C., Rivard, E. (2012), “Indigenous Geographies: Development and Confluence of
Territorialities”, Cahiers de Géographie du Québec, No. 56 (159), p. 559-564.
Desbiens, C., Rivard, E. (2014), “From Passive to Active Dialogue? Aboriginal Lands, Development
and Metissage in Quebec, Canada”, Cultural Geographies, n° 21 (1), p. 99-114.
Descola, Ph. (2005), Beyond nature and culture, Paris, Gallimard.
Escobar, A. (1992), “Planning” in Sachs, W. (dir), The Development dictionary: a guide to knowledge
as power. London, Zed Books, p. 132-145.
Fortin, G., Frenette, J. (1989), “The act of 1851 and the creation of new Indian reserves in Lower
Canada in 1853”, Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, n° XIX (1), p. 31-37.
Foucault, M. (2004), Security, Territory, Population, Course at the College de France (1977-1978), Paris,
Threshold, 448 p.

Grammond, S. (2009), “Territorial governance in Quebec between regionalization and participation

of Aboriginal peoples”, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science
°
politique, n 42 (4), p. 939-56.
Harris, C. (2004), “How Did Colonialism Dispossess? Comments from an Edge of Empire”, Annals
°
of the Association of American Geographers, no.94 (1), p. 165-182.
,
Harris, C. (2012), The surly country: society, space and environment in Canada before Confederation
Quebec, Presses de l'Université Laval, 459 p.
Hibbard, M. (2006), “Tribal Sovereignty, the White Problem, and Reservation Planning”, Journal of 5
Planning History, n ° (2), p. 87-105.
Hobbes, Th. (2000 [1651]), Leviathan or Matter, Form and Power of the Christian and Civil State,
trans. by Gérard Mairet, Paris, Gallimard, 1024 p.
CIP – Canadian Institute of Planners (2013), Dossier: “The indigenization of planning /Planning
indigenization”, Plan Canada, n° 53(2), 64 p.
CIP – Canadian Institute of Planners (2008), Dossier: “Celebrating best practices in Aboriginal
°
planning”, Plan Canada, n 7, 76 p.
Jojola, T. (2008), “Indigenous Planning. An Emerging Context”, Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
No. 17 (1), p. 37-47.
Lane, M., Hibbard, M. (2005), “Doing It for Themselves: Transformative Planning by Indigenous 25
Peoples”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, no. ° (2), p. 172-84.
Leclère, B. (2017), “Right to the city and rights over the city. The Case of the San Francisco Bay
Area Native Americans ,” Justice Spatial/Spatial Justice, No. 11, www.jssj.org.
Lepage, P. (2009), “Oka, 20 years already! The Distant and Contemporary Origins of the
Crisis”, Native American Research in ° 39 (1-2), p. 119-126.
Quebec, n Lévesque, C., Cloutier, É. (2013), "The First Peoples in Quebec's urban space:
plural trajectories" in Beaulieu, A. Papillon, M., Gervais, S. (dir.) Aboriginal Peoples and
Quebec . First Contacts at the Plan Nord, Montreal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, p. 281-296
Locke, J. (1802 [1690]), A Treatise on Civil Government, trans. from English, ed. rev. and corrected
on the latest from London, Paris, C. Volland [source: http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb39295333t].
Matunga, H. (2013), “Theorizing Indigenous Planning” in Walker, R., Jojola, T., Natcher, D.
(eds.), Reclaiming Indigenous Planning, Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, p. 3-32
Martínez Cobo, J. (1986), Study of the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations,
Vol. V, Conclusions, Proposals and Recommendations, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4, New York,
United Nations.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of
Machine Translated by Google

Items Land use planning and the question of cultural difference in Canada • 727

Papillon, M. (2012), “Indigenous peoples and citizenship: some contradictory effects of

neoliberal governance”, Public Ethics, vol. 14, No. 1 , https://ethiquepublique.revues.org/
968.
PekuakamiulnuatshTakuhikan (2005), Pekuakamiulnuatsh Cultural Affirmation Policy ,
adopted August 31, 2005, Mashteuiatsh, Advisory Commission on Culture, https://www.
mashteuiatsh.ca/bureau-politique-1/politique-daffirmation-culturelle-des-pekuakamiulnuatsh.
html.
Poirier, S. (2008), “Reflections on Indigenous Cosmopolitics—Poetics”, Anthropologica, n° 50 (1),
p. 75-85.
Porter, L., (2010), Unlearning the colonial cultures of planning, Farnham, Ashgate, 180 p.
Rivard, E. (2013), “The Common Approach or the irresistible impulse towards an interethnic definition of
territorial planning? », Recherches amérindiennes au Québec, n ° 43 (1), p. 25-38.
Rodon, Th. (2003), In partnership with the State: the experiences of co-management of the ,
natives of Canada Québec, PUL, 315 p.
Sandercock, L. (2004), “Commentary: Indigenous Planning and the Burden of Colonialism”, Planning
°
Theory & Practice, 5 (1), p. 118-24.
n Sandercock, L. (ed) (1998), Making the invisible visible: a multicultural planning history, Berkeley,
UCP, 623 p.
Sandercock, L., Attili, G. (2014), “Changing the Lens: Film as Action Research and Therapeutic
Planning Practice”, Journal of Planning Education and Research,° no.34 (1), p. 19-29.
Sandercock, L., Cook, J., Sparrow, L., Grant, L. (2013), “Indigenizing planning education,
decolonizing planning practice first steps”, Plan Canada, No. 53(2), p. 48-51.
Secretariat for Indigenous Affairs (SAA). (2015). Statistics of the Aboriginal populations of
Quebec 2015, http://www.autochtones.gouv.qc.ca/nations/population.htm, consulted on 21.02.2017.
Simard, JJ. (2003), Reduction: the invented autochthon and the Amerindians of today, Sillery,
North, 430 p.
Treuer, D. (2014), Indian roads. A trip to Indian America, Paris, Albin Michel, 420 p., trans. by D.
Laruelle.
Urbanity. Journal of the Ordre des urbanistes du Québec and the Canadian Institute of Urban
Planners (2010), Dossier: “Aboriginal presence and land use planning”, Ordre des Urbanistes
du Québec, p. 15-35.
Walker, R., Jojola, T., Natcher, D. (eds) (2013), Reclaiming Indigenous Planning, Montreal &
Kingston, McGill-Queen's University Press, 536 p.
Walker, R., Matunga, H. (2013), “Re-situating Indigenous planning in the city”, Plan Canada, No. 53 (2),
p. 15-17.
Wilson, Sh. (2008), Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods, Black Point, NS, Fernwood
Pub., 144 p.
Yiftachel, O. (1998), “Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side”, Journal of Planning
Literature, No. 12 (4), p. 395-406.
Yiftachel, O. (1995), “Planning as control: policy and resistance in deeply divided societies”,
°
Progress in Planning, n44, p. 115-184.
Yiftachel, O., Fenster, T. (1997), “Introduction: Frontiers, Planning and Indigenous Peoples”,
in Planning, n° Progress 47, p. 251-336.

www.cairn.info
137.122.8.73)
2023-04-17
University
|Uploaded
Ottawa
Armand
Colin
©from
(IP:
via
of