First Nations governance and compensation

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's all his beliefs are built on.

Smart guy I think, yet a little shy on practical application. A failed lawyer perhaps?

[g_bambino]

Smart guy I think, yet a little shy on practical application. A failed lawyer perhaps?

I don't think it's so much smart as stubbornly ignorant. He can't reconcile his belief that First Nations are fully sovereign entities with the fact that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 explicitly states that aboriginals in Canada fall under the sovereignty of the Crown, or that the Constitution Act 1867 puts Indians and Indian reserves under the authority of the federal parliament, or that it's an act of said parliament that establishes how First Nations are to govern themselves. His solution: pretend it isn't there.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't think it's so much smart as stubbornly ignorant. He can't reconcile his belief that First Nations are fully sovereign entities with the fact that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 explicitly states that aboriginals in Canada fall under the sovereignty of the Crown, or that the Constitution Act 1867 puts Indians and Indian reserves under the authority of the federal parliament, or that it's an act of said parliament that establishes how First Nations are to govern themselves. His solution: pretend it isn't there.

He wants what he wants. Why I have no idea, but he does anyway. The Crown owns the land, no citizen has property rights since the 1982 Constitution was enacted. Sad but true. The trillion dollar tab is a fantasy, pure and simple.

Even so, it is time to put to bed the entire sad saga.

[Smallc]

The Crown owns the land, no citizen has property rights since the 1982 Constitution was enacted.

That isn't true. We have the same property rights we always have had in the face of individuals. We simply don't have property rights in the face of the state.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That isn't true. We have the same property rights we always have had in the face of individuals. We simply don't have property rights in the face of the state.

Hahahahahaha.....interesting point! Yes the government diddled us all!

[Saipan]

That isn't true. We have the same property

Nope, we are now even behind Red China on property rights.

[charter.rights]

This what the Supreme Court has stated:

DELGAMUUKW v. BRITISH COLUMBIA

Lamer C.J. identified the sui generis [i.e., unique] nature of Aboriginal title as the unifying principle underlying its various dimensions. These are:

• inalienability, in that lands held pursuant to Aboriginal title may be transferred or surrendered only to the Crown: this does not mean, however, that Aboriginal title "is a non-proprietary interest which amounts to no more than a licence to use and occupy the land and cannot compete on an equal footing with other proprietary interests" (par. 113);

• source, in that Aboriginal title arises from (1) occupation of Canada by Aboriginal peoples prior to the Royal Proclamation of 1763: under common law principles, the physical fact of occupation is proof of possession in law; and (2) the relationship between common law and pre-existing systems of Aboriginal law;

• communal nature, in that Aboriginal title is a collective right to land held by all members of an Aboriginal nation.

These features cannot be explained fully under either common law rules of real property, or property rules of Aboriginal legal systems.

So unless the government can show the land was surrendered and prove it before the courts, aboriginal title - their exclusive property right -not only exists, but is superior to any government claim.

[Smallc]

Nope, we are now even behind Red China on property rights.

Prove it.

[Jack Weber]

Nope, we are now even behind Red China on property rights.

Actually China is the prototypical corporate Fascist state,but that's neither here nor there since you seem to think that KGB is spying on us all from Ottawa...

That's right...The Politburo on Parliament Hill is in control of the state and the state controls you!!

[Saipan]

Actually China is the prototypical corporate Fascist state,but that's neither here nor there since you seem to think that KGB is spying on us all from Ottawa...

That's right...The Politburo on Parliament Hill is in control of the state and the state controls you!!

Where are you getting all that crap?

[Saipan]

Prove it.

China now has property rights.

Canada doesn't.

[Smallc]

China now has property rights.

Canada doesn't.

We do have property rights, as I've already explained. If you actually read about Chinese property rights, they actually don't exist.

[Saipan]

We do have property rights, as I've already explained.

Can we read it in constitution? And where? Or do we have to take some liberal's word for it?

[Smallc]

Can we read it in constitution? And where? Or do we have to take some liberal's word for it?

It's in the law. Your property is your own, except in the face of the state.

[Saipan]

It's in the law.

Where is it?

[Smallc]

Where is it?

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006519

[charter.rights]

It's in the law. Your property is your own, except in the face of the state.

Well, no it is not. You have succumbed to yet another Canadian myth.

You deed is nothing more than a use permit. The Crown holds the underlying right of use, while aboriginal title is supreme.

You have a right to use the land only to a plows depth, and no higher than your house. You use of the land is limited by by-laws, and you cannot build or excavate on your property without the Crown's permission. You cannot demolish any building on your property without a permit, and even the trees and landscape can be governed. If you have a mortgage, the bank has greater rights than you do and if you fail to pay they can sell it from under you. The municipality can expropriate it and evict you if they think that it is in the public's best interest.

So you really have no property rights at all, save and except the police may enter after they obtain a warrant to invade your personal domain. Yet firefighters and property standards officers do not need a warrant and may enter at any reasonable time to see if there is an infraction.

No rights. Just one big Canadian myth.

[Smallc]

And once again, Charter Rights proves that ignorance can exist in the face of facts.

[Bonam]

Well, no it is not. You have succumbed to yet another Canadian myth.

You deed is nothing more than a use permit. The Crown holds the underlying right of use, while aboriginal title is supreme.

You have a right to use the land only to a plows depth, and no higher than your house. You use of the land is limited by by-laws, and you cannot build or excavate on your property without the Crown's permission. You cannot demolish any building on your property without a permit, and even the trees and landscape can be governed. If you have a mortgage, the bank has greater rights than you do and if you fail to pay they can sell it from under you. The municipality can expropriate it and evict you if they think that it is in the public's best interest.

So you really have no property rights at all, save and except the police may enter after they obtain a warrant to invade your personal domain. Yet firefighters and property standards officers do not need a warrant and may enter at any reasonable time to see if there is an infraction.

No rights. Just one big Canadian myth.

The fact that there are certain limitations on property rights does not mean that such rights do not exist.

[charter.rights]

And once again, Charter Rights proves that ignorance can exist in the face of facts.

Prove it. Having "property law" is not the same thing as having "property rights". Law is a restrictive covenant, not a permissive one.

Edited December 7, 2010 by charter.rights