Indigenous Rights and Title in Canada

[kimmy]

oops! thx

Living on the (now) Aboriginal Title land ?

With a property title?

.

I think he may have been trying to say that a tiny group has been given a piece of land that could have provided plenty of space for the population of a medium-sized city.

-k

[jacee]

I think we'll have to distinguish between 'private land' held for proposed large scale industrial/resource extraction uses - logging, mining, etc - where the objection is to the type of use of the land ...... and private land held by existing residents - homes, businesses and farms, etc., where the 'use' isn't as intrusive.

No guarantees of course.

If I was concerned about my property on land where Aboriginal title is asserted by a local First Nation, I think I'd go and ask them about it civilly.

Panicking and freaking out at them probably wouldn't be helpful though.

.

Edited June 30, 2014 by jacee

[eyeball]

I don't think the government makes much distinction between big resource corporations and real flesh and blood people like us.

I had no problems discussing my land use plans with several local First Nations directly and getting their blessing, the problem was dealing with our own stupid government. It has created a horror show of an industry out of it's fiduciary responsibility to consult First Nations governments. It matter's not how much effort you put in to getting letters of support from local chiefs and band councils or how many ducks you line up before getting whatever permit, licence or application you need from our government to do something, the process will still take months and months and maybe even years.

Big resource companies can probably afford to wait out some long drawn out rigamarole but not ordinary people. Ironically enough when I finally threw in the towel and sold my operation to a local band chief, the paperwork literally flew like poop through a goose.

I'm just waiting until the day when people acquiring hunting and fishing permits need to consult First Nations, mark my words that day will come.

[jacee]

I don't think the government makes much distinction between big resource corporations and real flesh and blood people like us.

I had no problems discussing my land use plans with several local First Nations directly and getting their blessing, the problem was dealing with our own stupid government. It has created a horror show of an industry out of it's fiduciary responsibility to consult First Nations governments. It matter's not how much effort you put in to getting letters of support from local chiefs and band councils or how many ducks you line up before getting whatever permit, licence or application you need from our government to do something, the process will still take months and months and maybe even years.

Big resource companies can probably afford to wait out some long drawn out rigamarole but not ordinary people. Ironically enough when I finally threw in the towel and sold my operation to a local band chief, the paperwork literally flew like poop through a goose.

I'm just waiting until the day when people acquiring hunting and fishing permits need to consult First Nations, mark my words that day will come.

Interesting to hear your personal experience eyeball, and I'm so sorry you had to sell.

My sense is that our governments are so accustomed to stalling (by simply not making decisions) and dealing in bad faith on Aboriginal land issues that they have no experience in doing things efficiently.

This time it will be non-aboriginal people who suffer for the governments' failures.

.

[kimmy]

I think we'll have to distinguish between 'private land' held for proposed large scale industrial/resource extraction uses - logging, mining, etc - where the objection is to the type of use of the land ...... and private land held by existing residents - homes, businesses and farms, etc., where the 'use' isn't as intrusive.

No guarantees of course.

.

Maybe people are excited about this because they think that it only impacts forestry companies and pipelines, and haven't considered that there might be actual humans whose lives are changed by land claim settlements.

If I was concerned about my property on land where Aboriginal title is asserted by a local First Nation, I think I'd go and ask them about it civilly.

Panicking and freaking out at them probably wouldn't be helpful though.

.

Well, luckily the only property I own is here within the bounds of Kim City, where there's no chance of thousands of people being disrupted by a land claim settlement. I've been keeping an eye on rural real estate, but haven't yet got enough money saved to pull the trigger. And I guess I should be grateful that this ruling happened now. It might have spared me from making a mistake I'd regret for many years.

It's still my dream, but maybe it doesn't happen in BC anymore. Maybe there's some place in Alberta or the US where I could have more confidence that I won't end up in some kind of legal nightmare.

-k

Edited June 30, 2014 by kimmy

[TimG]

Well, luckily the only property I own is here within the bounds of Kim City, where there's no chance of thousands of people being disrupted by a land claim settlement.

Well, given the naive idiots sitting on our courts you should watch for deals over the next 20 years which handover large tracts of urban lands with the provision that the fee simple title remains - only it the band who has the power to tax and expropriate rather land elected officials. Little details like no taxation without representation will be forgotten.

Canada will turn into a feudal state where all property rights belong to a super wealthy aboriginal elite and everyone else is just a serf living on rented land.

At this point in time I think the best course of action would to entrench property rights in the constitution.

If natives can have them then why shouldn't everyone else?

Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Maybe people are excited about this because they think that it only impacts forestry companies and pipelines, and haven't considered that there might be actual humans whose lives are changed by land claim settlements.

-k

I'm excited because after several centuries of our governments lying, denying, stalling and stealing, FINALLY justice is being done!

'National pride' is just a bad joke to me, until we do the right thing about our national shame - Aboriginal rights.

I think a lot of people are pleased to see a start in a better direction.

And I think we all hope that not many people will be affected badly ... but that's on our governments.

.

[TimG]

FINALLY justice is being done!

Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Any time someone dispenses "justice" they are creating "injustice". The only real question are which injustices is one willing to live with. For me, I don't give a damn about papers were signed 200+ years ago. What matters today is how to build and effectively govern a large multi-ethnic society. You can't do that if you hand out rights to people based on their race. There is no justice in a society that becomes ungovernable because large tracts of its lands are no longer under the control of the elected government. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

At this point in time I think the best course of action would to entrench property rights in the constitution.

If natives can have them then why shouldn't everyone else?

I'm sure you know the answers: The gov couldn't and can't promise to protect our properties because there are outstanding Aboriginal claims on most of it ... because of our governments' shady dealings in the past.

Get title insurance.

.

Edited June 30, 2014 by jacee

[TimG]

because of shady dealings in the past.

So what? Not my fault. And why should people living today receive any special consideration just because they have a DNA link to people who may have been screwed?

Get title insurance.

Explicitly excludes land claims. It only protects against other sorts of government errors. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

So what? Not my fault.

But it is your/our problem to deal with and resolve, regardless.

Explicitly excludes land claims. It only protects against other sorts of government errors.

Good to know.

[-1=e^ipi]

At this point in time I think the best course of action would to entrench property rights in the constitution.

Is that sufficient? Maybe we need a completely new constitution.

[jacee]

Is that sufficient? Maybe we need a completely new constitution.

We'll all be dead before that ever happens!

.

[overthere]

Interesting to hear your personal experience eyeball, and I'm so sorry you had to sell.

My sense is that our governments are so accustomed to stalling (by simply not making decisions) and dealing in bad faith on Aboriginal land issues that they have no experience in doing things efficiently.

This time it will be non-aboriginal people who suffer for the governments' failures.

.

Perahps the stalling is their way of acting repsonsibly......as is their duty with taxpayers money.

Why make a decision knowing that it will end of in court because whatever you do, it will piss off somebody and end up with taxpayers being sued? It's a no win situation for the meat in that sandwich: us.

[Remiel]

kimmy interpreted my last comment more or less correctly: if all the people on Earth were spread out equally amongst its lands then an area of 1750 square km would be home to 87,500 people, give or take a few thousand.

[jacee]

kimmy interpreted my last comment more or less correctly: if all the people on Earth were spread out equally amongst its lands then an area of 1750 square km would be home to 87,500 people, give or take a few thousand.

Even mountaintops?

.

[Remiel]

It is a generalization. I did not control for desert wastelands (both hot and cold varieties) either. Besides, mountains have minerals at least.

[TimG]

Is that sufficient? Maybe we need a completely new constitution.

It would easier to add something that remove it. It is also better than nothing. If we do nothing the courts will turn the country in a collection of feudal fiefdoms populated by serfs with no property rights. Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

It would easier to add something that remove it. It is also better than nothing. If we do nothing the courts will turn the country in a collection of feudal fiefdoms populated by serfs with no property rights.

Catastrophize much?

.

[TimG]

Catastrophize much?

Do you expect to be around in 30 years? This will be the outcome unless there is a political crisis that motivates people to push back on courts that sacrifice practical realities in a hopeless search for some progressive definition of "justice". Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Do you expect to be around in 30 years?

Probably not.

This will be the outcome unless there is a political crisis that motivates people to push back on courts that sacrifice practical realities in a hopeless search for some progressive definition of "justice".

You do know there is a balancing of rights and practical realities too ?

... not saying it'll always work perfectly where treaty violations are egregious, but we can hold our governments accountable for that.

.

[TimG]

You do know there is a balancing of rights and practical realities too ?

What balancing of practical realities? The court decision gives aboriginals vetos over every development in the country unless the government can prove it is in the "public interest" and "minimal impact". The trouble no one knows what that means and there will be another 20 years of litigation where the courts define the basis for a "public interest" override. There is no balance in this decision. It is a employment program for lawyers.

The decision is a classic of ivory tower idealism which will only make the country worse off in the long run. It will also increase racism and resentment as non-natives people start to realized how they got screwed over by a bunch of ivory tower academics who won't live long enough to suffer the hardship created by the freeze on development.

Perhaps what pisses me off the most is the courts took away the governments negotiating leverage. I don't have a big issue with giving aboriginals fee simple title to vast tracts of crown land in compensation for past wrongs. But I do have an issue with the tax free status and endless subsidies because, unlike simple property rights, these privileges are pure racism. The one lever the government had was we will give you land if you give up the privileges. Now the court says you get the land AND the privileges. It is absolutely vile.

Edited June 30, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

What balancing of practical realities? The court decision gives aboriginals vetos over every development in the country unless the government can prove it is in the "public interest" and "minimal impact". The trouble no one knows what that means and there will be another 20 years of litigation where the courts define the basis for a "public interest" override. There is no balance in this decision.

True. The law is slow. This is a catastrophy?

It's the way it works.

Here's the "balance" ruling

... the Crown must balance Aboriginal concerns reasonably with the potential impact of the decision on the asserted right or title and with other societal interests.

And the 'substantial and compelling' reasons to infringe without consent will require more cases in the court. true.

The decision is a classic of ivory tower idealism which will only make the country worse off in the long run. It will also increase racism and resentment as non-natives people start to realized how they got screwed over by a bunch of ivory tower academics who won't live long enough to suffer the hardship created by the freeze on development.

Is that a threat?

.

[jacee]

Perhaps what pisses me off the most is the courts took away the governments negotiating leverage. I don't have a big issue with giving aboriginals fee simple title to vast tracts of crown land in compensation for past wrongs. But I do have an issue with the tax free status and endless subsidies because, unlike simple property rights, these privileges are pure racism.

Well you see Tim, if you want some of the "racist" "privileges" our governments have delivered to Indigenous people, you have to get them all:

You lose your land.

You lose your children.

You lose your laws, religion and governance.

And then you spend a few hundred years trying to get a bit of it back.

The one lever the government had was we will give you land if you give up the privileges. Now the court says you get the land AND the privileges. It is absolutely vile.

It's just law. Our law.

And blackmailing them to 'surrender sovereignty' is a violation of international law and likely our constitution too.

It's not happening.

Move on.

.

.

Edited July 1, 2014 by jacee

[August1991]

Do you have a treaty with Mozarts govt that you could show us?

But this is where we are. We are looking for vague bits of paper, supposedly signed centuries ago, where Mozart (apparently) gave the rights to all his operas to someone else. And now, Mozart's progeny claim that this vague, unknowable paper entitles them to all the royalties.

Intellectual property enters the public domain typically 60 years after death. The works of Mozart are now free for all to use.

Real estate enters the public domain if you don't use it, or pay land taxes on it. Mozart at least had clear claim on creating his property.

====

This is a shakedown, with the horrible background situation of native North Americans. It's as if the Hell's Angels controlled Quebec in the 1930s. Extorting rich English-Canada for money while ignoring the illiterate people around them.