Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

[scribblet]

It was land outside of the reserve that they did not have title to and is supposedly lands still used for traditional purposes.

[jacee]

It was land outside of the reserve that they did not have title to and is supposedly lands still used for traditional purposes.

There is very little treaty land in BC. It is, thus, virtually all 'unceded' land - never ceded to the Crown. The Supreme Court ruling establishes Aboriginal title to unceded land.

It also clarifies that where claims are not yet completed, governments and businesses must proceed cautiously with development - with consent/agreement - because if title is later received, project permission can be rescinded.

Across the country, even where treaties purported to 'cede' land to the Crown, it is only valid if the government completed the terms of the agreement. No payment, no treaty.

Thus, even supposed treaty land can still be unceded Aboriginal title land.

.

[GostHacked]

Unfortunately for them, and the rest of us, is that we really do not have land rights for anyone. The crown can take the land under eminent domain type actions. So while I applaud the decision and action, I feel it really won't make a difference. And that kind of thing cannot change unless we change some portions of our government and our relationship with the 'queen'.

[Rue]

Ghost's comment is legally correct.

[Smallc]

Not true.

Link please.

.

This ruling dealt with unceded land.

[jacee]

Unfortunately for them, and the rest of us, is that we really do not have land rights for anyone. The crown can take the land under eminent domain type actions. So while I applaud the decision and action, I feel it really won't make a difference. And that kind of thing cannot change unless we change some portions of our government and our relationship with the 'queen'.

Yes that is legally true, but "taking the land" is also highly restricted on Aboriginal title land, by the new ruling. In this SCoC case, "We need it for logging" wasn't good enough.

.

Edited June 27, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

This ruling dealt with unceded land.

You don't research before you make silly claims like that, so I have to keep shooting you down with the facts:

Importantly, the court also said that where Aboriginal title is asserted but not yet established that is, for all unresolved land claims First Nations must be consulted and given a degree of control consistent with the strength of their title claim. As such government and resource developers cannot push projects through before the pending rush of Aboriginal title cases are heard. If a case is pending, the concept is already in play.

- See more at: http://www.northernminer.com/news/supreme-court-makes-landmark-aboriginal-title-ruling/1003133935/?&er=NA#sthash.X9TaLjhk.dpuf

[cybercoma]

Not true.

Link please

Read the court decision. It has to do with unceded land.

[cybercoma]

You don't research before you make silly claims like that, so I have to keep shooting you down with the facts:

Importantly, the court also said that where Aboriginal title is asserted but not yet established that is, for all unresolved land claims First Nations must be consulted and given a degree of control consistent with the strength of their title claim. As such government and resource developers cannot push projects through before the pending rush of Aboriginal title cases are heard. If a case is pending, the concept is already in play.

- See more at: http://www.northernminer.com/news/supreme-court-makes-landmark-aboriginal-title-ruling/1003133935/?&er=NA#sthash.X9TaLjhk.dpuf

Unresolved land claims. Where there are treaties, the claims are already resolved by the treaties.

[dre]

Unresolved land claims. Where there are treaties, the claims are already resolved by the treaties.

As long as the government has honored its treaty obligations

[Smallc]

That has nothing to do with this decision.

[jacee]

Read the court decision. It has to do with unceded land.

The judge also addressed outstanding claims.

http://www.northernminer.com/news/supreme-court-makes-landmark-aboriginal-title-ruling/1003133935/?&er=NA

Edited June 27, 2014 by jacee

[Smallc]

Those claims have already been settled at some point. If they're in dispute, it's over payments, not the title of the land (and yes, some fn will claim different but they're wrong.

[jacee]

Those claims have already been settled at some point. If they're in dispute, it's over payments, not the title of the land (and yes, some fn will claim different but they're wrong.

No payment, no valid treaty/'surrender'/agreement of sale.

No treaty ... unceded land ... Aboriginal title.

.

[Smallc]

Those are disputes. It doesn't mean the land isn't ceded. As with any contract, it had to go through resolution (the courts) but it isn't automatically abrogated. Enough with your one sided silly claims.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Smallc

[jacee]

Those are disputes. It doesn't mean the land isn't ceded. As with any contract, it had to go through resolution (the courts) but it isn't automatically abrogated. Enough with your one sided silly claims.

I'm not claiming anything.

I'm saying that through the court process, some 'treaty' land may well end up as Aboriginal Title

IF our governments didn't fulfill the terms of the agreements.

.

[Smallc]

That's highly unlikely, though possible. The court is more likely to suggest remedies.

[cybercoma]

Those are disputes. It doesn't mean the land isn't ceded. As with any contract, it had to go through resolution (the courts) but it isn't automatically abrogated. Enough with your one sided silly claims.

Jacee's sort of right. If the government isn't upholding their end of the treaty obligations, then why should they get the benefits of them? The treaties are broken if one side doesn't hold up their end of the bargain.

Edited June 28, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Well what holding up their end of the bargain is, is in dispute. Los the government generally providing the things that aboriginal people need to live their lives on reserve? Well, they're paying for education, health services, housing, etc. are they doing these things in a manner that aboriginal people are satisfied with? Generally no, so you need to go through all of the dispute resolution processes and come out with some kind of answer. The court will have to figure that out, but it's another case for another day, it isn't settled here.

[jacee]

I agree that the court process is extremely valuable.

Now that the court has clarified and provided ground rules for Aboriginal Title, negotiations should proceed more efficiently on a variety of issues - outstanding claims, resource development, etc.

The government's response is to encourage negotiation rather than litigation, not commenting on the ruling yet:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=862839

The Government of Canada is now taking time to review the Courts decision to determine next steps.

Our Government believes that the best way to resolve outstanding Aboriginal rights and title claims is through negotiated settlements that balance the interests of all Canadians.

But another perspective:

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/5533233

... it was a long 25 years."People said don't do these court cases. Go to the treaty table. Talk with the government," he said.

"It was a lonely struggle to go forward and be in the courts and say, no, we're not going to settle for the few crumbs the government's willing to offer."

I think if our governments are really interested in resolving Aboriginal rights and titles issues with speed and efficiency, they should encourage, even undertake themselves, litigation on major issues to supply legal precedents that can then be followed in negotiating settlements.

I would hope that this ruling will improve our government's efficiency in negotiations, which often seem to me to be just focused on stalling and avoiding resolution.

Edited June 28, 2014 by jacee

[Smallc]

Some of the claims are far too expensive to ever pay. That's why I say that at some point, Constitutional legislation may be the only answer.

[kimmy]

I think that industry will survive this. Corporations have managed to navigate their way through the banana republics of the third world, so dealing with First Nation bands shouldn't be the end of the world for them. They'll make things work somehow. Band council members at my local reserve drive around in brand new $60,000 pickup trucks. I imagine they'll soon be able to upgrade to Bentleys.

I'm feeling a little stressed about what this means for the future.

I suspect that a lot of bands who have settled claims in the past are looking at this new ruling and saying "We got ripped off!" and are probably lawyering up already. This new standard will also drastically affect land claims already in progress, and will probably launch a bunch more land claims too. The people celebrating this ruling claim it's a step on the way to settling land claims once and for all, but it might just open the floodgates to more land claims and litigation over claims that had already been settled.

I worry about the sheer financial cost. The new standard for what constitutes traditional territory sounds extremely broad. It will probably mean that numerous major cities are built entirely within the traditional territory of some band or another. The federal government will probably be writing hundred-million dollar cheques left and right to compensate bands for cities being built on their "traditional territory".

I also worry about what this means to private property owners. There will be situations where land claims conclude that peoples' homes are on "traditional lands". My dream is to live on property in the hills; I dread the possibility that someday somebody from Indian Affairs shows up at my door and says "sorry, your acreage is on land that's part of this land claim, and we're going to take it so that we can resolve this land claim." They could use eminent domain and write me some paltry cheque and evict me, for no reason other than that some native person's ancestor passed through 200 years ago.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

-k

...They could use eminent domain and write me some paltry cheque and evict me, for no reason other than that some native person's ancestor passed through 200 years ago.

....but you would be just "passing through" now....for even fewer years. What's the difference ?

[kimmy]

Personally I find the premise that people could be forced from their homes on the flimsiest historical pretext to be tremendously unfunny.

-k

[cybercoma]

Personally I find the premise that people could be forced from their homes on the flimsiest historical pretext to be tremendously unfunny.

-k

Is that happening? I haven't heard about people being forced from their homes yet.