The Cost of Native Land Claims

[Riverwind]

There are many people who claim that we must honour native treaties because a deal is a deal. However, what most people don't consider is the potentially huge cost of honouring deals that were made in a different era. My belief is that everyone who is not native has a limit - a point where they will simply say that the cost is too high and that the native treaties should be ignored no matter how legal they may be.

This poll is intended to find out where that limit is.

Keep in mind that ignoring native treaties does not mean that natives get nothing. It just means the theoretical entitlements in native treaties will not be the basis for any settlement.

If you are native please choose the last option since this poll is intended for non-natives that have to pay the cost but get no benefits.

I used an increase in the GST because that is a tax that everyone pays. Answering that you would be happy to use someone else's money to pay for the claims defeats the purpose of the poll.

A couple more points:

Some people think that we can pay for native treaties by simply giving natives a cut of resource royalties - this is equivalent to a tax increase for non-natives since gov't would have to replace the lost income some how (or cut services).

There are approximately 2 million natives in Canada - so a settlement of $5 billion/year is only about $2500/native per year. I believe that would be considered low from the point of view of most natives bands making claims. IOW - it is wrong to think that native lands claims can be settled without a significant tax increase. For example, the Tsawwassen band is asking for a settlement of $150,000/band member. It would cost $300 billion to provide that level of settlement to every native in Canada.

[Live From China]

Would there be an end to this compensation, or would it be largesse without end?

[Riverwind]

Would there be an end to this compensation, or would it be largesse without end?

A payout of $300 billion would take 30 years to pay at $10 billion/year (a 2% GST hike). However, most native groups are asking all or part of the royalities that the gov't collects on resources. Any deal structured like that is compensation without end.

[Kindred]

Didnt someone post that they already get 10 billion a year? Where is all this money supposed to come from? I dont think Cdn tax payers can take much more, we are already one of the highest taxed countires in the world to my understanding.

[Live From China]

I definitely do not think it should be compensation without end!

[Charles Anthony]

This poll is intended to find out where that limit is.

The only answers that are provided are the ones that follow YOUR assumptions of what the right answers should be.

People who do not agree with YOUR economic assumptions are not provided with choice.

Keep in mind that ignoring native treaties does not mean that natives get nothing. It just means the theoretical entitlements in native treaties will not be the basis for any settlement.

Now, let us look at democracy in action step by step:

If you are native please choose the last option since this poll is intended for non-natives that have to pay the cost but get no benefits.

Natives have to pay the GST in certain situations and have exemptions in others.

Also, what YOU identify as a "benefit" can also (or may not necessarily) be identified as a "benefit" by a person who is native too. Natives on and off reserves (assimilated or not assimilated) are not homogeneous in their political views, their knowledge of the most basic principles of economics and their understanding of the real effects of taxation.

This is the biggest mistake in the poll:

I used an increase in the GST because that is a tax that everyone pays.

First, some people get GST rebates and others do not.

Second, when I choose to increase the GST as a way of choosing how I would pay for something, what I am also insisting is "I want everybody else to pay for what I want and I will throw in a tiny fraction." --- the difference between that and a free-rider is very little.

Third, the overall effect of an increase in tax (any tax) reduces the efficiency of an economy. The way that an economy will respond varies -- some sectors will vary disproportionately as well. It is possible that the decrease in efficiency negates (or does worse) the "benefit" people derive from such a scheme.

Answering that you would be happy to use someone else's money to pay for the claims defeats the purpose of the poll.

That is exactly and exclusively what your choices mean. What about people who get GST rebates, what does their vote mean in YOUR poll? are they allowed to vote?

One of the sad problems with taxation and its effect on an economy is due to the factor of time. Getting a rebate at the end of a year is not economically equivalent as being exempt from having to pay it at point of sale each time.

Some people think that we can pay for native treaties by simply giving natives a cut of resource royalties - this is equivalent to a tax increase for non-natives since gov't would have to replace the lost income some how (or cut services).

No, it is NOT equivalent. That is a grave economic error.

First, an economy can "benefit" (and some can suffer) if overall taxes decrease depending on the amount. In the case of a selective tax (or exemption of tax), a particular sector can "benefit" and even have spin-offs to other sectors.

Second, the recipient of resource royalties will likely make use of the resource differently than if they were not a recipient. They will likely participate in making that resource productive. On the other hand, they may not do so but it is foolish to automatically assume that they will treat it the same. [We often distrust economists who analyze social policies. How easy it is for social engineers to abuse economics to support their social policies!]

I wonder if the Trudeaumaniacal mentality of "increase tax = increase revenue; decrease tax = decrease revenue" will ever be shaken from the Canadian psyche.....

IOW - it is wrong to think that native lands claims can be settled without a significant tax increase.

The poll demonstrates that bias clearly. Only people who agree with you are provided a choice (and the choices only differ in degree). Funny how voting can work that way, is it not?

[betsy]

I definitely do not think it should be compensation without end!

One thing for sure with me, I share the same sentiment of Live From China.

As to how much, I don't know. Would the amount be ADDITIONAL to other benefits such as education, health care, housing etc.., that they now have?

Or, being a "nation" with their own self-government, will we then shake hands after the deal is met (and paid in full!), and they'd stand on their own feet as a nation without any further financial assistance from us?

[Leafless]

It's the Charter that guarantees minorities their rights.

If you remove Native or aboriginal rights then you would have to remove Quebec rights or they would appear fraudulent.

I fully believe that the only reason aboriginal rights were included in the Charter was for the benefit of Quebec as to not question the rights of Quebecers as minorties pertaining to official languages etc.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

I fully believe that the only reason aboriginal rights were included in the Charter was for the benefit of Quebec as to not question the rights of Quebecers as minorties pertaining to official languages etc.

That is borderline 'conspiracy theory'. Looking back at 'Canadian History', the English, French and the 'Originals' were all equally involved in creating 'Canada'.

I believe that this is why 'totalitarianism' truly belongs to 'the right' and not 'the left', because you seem to dismiss a notion of 'collective culturalism', and would rather have the strongest take over completely, while expecting the 'weaker' to assimilate, aquiesce, or die.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

I fully believe that the only reason aboriginal rights were included in the Charter was for the benefit of Quebec as to not question the rights of Quebecers as minorties pertaining to official languages etc.

That is borderline 'conspiracy theory'. Looking back at 'Canadian History', the English, French and the 'Originals' were all equally involved in creating 'Canada'.

I believe that this is why 'totalitarianism' truly belongs to 'the right' and not 'the left', because you seem to dismiss a notion of 'collective culturalism', and would rather have the strongest take over completely, while expecting the 'weaker' to assimilate, aquiesce, or die.

There are not to many countries that can afford or recognize "collective culturalism".

It seems currently Canada can do it ( due to lack of public outcry) financially speaking but at what expense to other parts of properly maintaining an established society.

But the main question being is can Canada accomplish this politically?

And to that question I would say NO as the political seams are begining to unravel at a rapid rate to where federal control as been reduced to a mere game similar to the 'price is right' but yet federal parties continue to play this mind boggling game for no other reason than for politcal self preservation.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

federal control as been reduced to a mere game similar to the 'price is right' but yet federal parties continue to play this mind boggling game for no other reason than for politcal self preservation.

I agree with you here. I don't like the poll itself, and did not respond, because (I agree with Charles Anthony) the options are very limited and 'leading'.

Riverwind's comment...

My belief is that everyone who is not native has a limit - a point where they will simply say that the cost is too high and that the native treaties should be ignored no matter how legal they may be.

Is a very damaging one, to renege on a contract demonstrates very bad faith (or 'bad medicine'). I think that perhaps a re-negotiation, with a 'one-time buyout' clause, might be a possibility.

[August1991]

Riverview,

Your poll is interesting and by asking in terms of the GST, you properly put the question in a context people can undertstand.

Your numbers however are misplaced, and land claims cannot be simplified as you imply.

First, you state that there are 2 million aboriginals. In fact, there are about 750,000 Registered Indians in Canada and that number will rise to no more than 950,000 in 2020.

Second, most land claims in Canada have been resolved:

When the Europeans first began to settle in the eastern part of North America, Britain recognized that the people who were already living there had title to the land. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could acquire lands from First Nations, and only by treaty.

In most of Canada, both before and after Confederation, treaties were signed which set out the rights of aboriginal people with respect to matters such as land, hunting and fishing.

The exception was BC (and the Far North):

In 1871, when British Columbia joined Confederation, under the Terms of Union, the new province did not recognize aboriginal title, so there was no need for treaties.

BC Government

So, land claims are essentially a problem in BC. If you are interested, you can go through the list here of various BC aboriginal groups and their negotiating status.

I frankly think these negotiations should be left to run their course. Like most negotiations, the Indians want the most land/money possible and the BC/federal governments want to give up the least they have to. Up to a point, it's cheaper to pay the lawyers than to settle.

----

There are other land disputes in Ontario and Quebec (eg. Caledonia and Oka) but these amount to natives arguing that their existing treaty rights have not been respected. There's no end to that game, particularly when extortion becomes potentially profitable.

In addition, under the Indian Act, the federal government has obligations to registered Indians quite apart from land claims. The federal government is responsible for social services and registered Indians are exempt from certain taxes.

The annual budget of Indian and Northern Affairs is about $9 billion which is about $10,000 for each registered Indian. To use your GST example, if INA were abolished, we could cut the GST by 2%.

[Charles Anthony]

by asking in terms of the GST,

the results of the poll makes for great biased journalism to convince people have taken Intro to MacroEconomics 101 and think they no anything about economics.

[Riverwind]

First, you state that there are 2 million aboriginals. In fact, there are about 750,000 Registered Indians in Canada and that number will rise to no more than 950,000 in 2020.

I got my numbers from the CIA factbook which claims 2% of the Canadian population is Aboriginal. One of the things many native groups are demanding at the treaty table is the right to decide who is a 'registered indian' and who is not. This could represent a huge liability for non-native taxpayers and potentially make it possible for natives to sell 'citizenships' and dramitically expand the number of registered indians.

I frankly think these negotiations should be left to run their course. Like most negotiations, the Indians want the most land/money possible and the BC/federal governments want to give up the least they have to. Up to a point, it's cheaper to pay the lawyers than to settle.

It is not as simple as handing land over. Natives are demanding that they not only get the land but be exempt from local zoning regulations which creates conflicts between native and non-native residents. Furthermore, natives reserves don't pay taxes on income earned on reserves. This currently not a big deal because there are few businesses on reserves. If treaties allow natives to dramatically expand the reserve land base without eliminating this tax exemption then we will have a big problem.

There are other land disputes in Ontario and Quebec (eg. Caledonia and Oka) but these amount to natives arguing that their existing treaty rights have not been respected. There's no end to that game, particularly when extortion becomes potentially profitable.

Each time one group gets something another group demands more. There is no limit to human greed which is why the idea that people with native DNA deserve special consideration because 'they were here first' is so dangerous.

[Riverwind]

First, some people get GST rebates and others do not....

The GST is a broad based tax that affects everyone. I choose the GST because I wanted people to think about whether their support for native land claims is based on the myth that some magical tax fairy would provide the money and if their opinion would change if settling these claims would cost them personally.

First, an economy can "benefit" (and some can suffer) if overall taxes decrease depending on the amount. In the case of a selective tax (or exemption of tax), a particular sector can "benefit" and even have spin-offs to other sectors.

Alberta collects 8-12 billion in oil royalities today. This allows Alberta to provide good quality social services without a sales tax. If a large fraction of these revenues were handed over to natives then Alberta would have to replace the lost revenue by increasing taxes or cutting services. Some of this lost revenue could be replaced if the natives were taxed like everyone else, however, it would still mean the gov'ts would have less money coming in.

[Riverwind]

I agree with you here. I don't like the poll itself, and did not respond, because (I agree with Charles Anthony) the options are very limited and 'leading'.

What options would you like to see?

Is a very damaging one, to renege on a contract demonstrates very bad faith (or 'bad medicine'). I think that perhaps a re-negotiation, with a 'one-time buyout' clause, might be a possibility.

Any renegotiation starts with the presumption that one party is willing to renege on the contract if necessary. If you don't start with that presumption then there can be no re-negotiation.

[Charles Anthony]

The options are not answers to the poll question.

What options would you like to see?

The only options that make sense are..... surprise, surprise: a dollar amount!

The question asks: "What is the most you would pay...?" so the options must be answers to that question!

You can make those options a lump sum or a regular payment but they must be a dollar amount. Period.

We need some "Clarity Bill" here!

[Rue]

This is without a doubt a very tough question.

When one talks about proper compensation for native peoples one has to review an evolution of treaties signed and broken between the native peoples and the crown before and after confederation not to mention an interrelationship to treaties broken in the United States.

When we talk compensation we are talking about dealing with the actions of the former British governments, the federal government, the 12 provincial governments, international disputes that cross over into the United States and of course compensation for disputes regarding land claims and other matters such as abuse at residential schools.

To try lump all these issues into one big category and lump all aboriginal nations into one compensation scheme would fail to properly recognize differences and distinctions in rights between different native peoples and the appropriate government or in compensation issues more properly settled on an individual civil litigation basis.

The fact is there were numerous treaties entered into with the native peoples leading up to king George the Third's Royal Proclomation of 1763 which recognized that treaties with aborginal peoples as to land use and ownership had been unfair and often broken and this prclomation recognized these treaties as constitutional rights that should be properly recognized and honoured. Twenty years later the Treaty of Paris ignored the Covenant Chain and Treaty of Stanwex when defining borders between Canada and the United States around the Great Lakes and so today we have multiple layers of issues with international, federal and provincial compensation consequences.

Interestingly in 1982,s .35 of the Constitution Act recognized aboriginal treaties and in 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sioui case advised legislators, governments, etc.,to interperate treaties liberally and in favour of the native peoples.

The fact is however, thousands of land claims remain in dispute and who knows where to start with the thousands of potential claims for compensation for sexual abuse at residential schools which is a distinct issue and one I think is far from over and may be better handled in class action law suits.

I personally think financial compensation is not the panacea for righting the wrongs.

What we clearly need to do is;

i-compensate natives on an individual or family level for abuses at residential schools

ii-try create a uniform method that can allow native peoples to continue enjoying their land use and hunting rights while coexisting with other laws and priorities

iii-in a newly constituted senate of elected officials, assuring a set number for aboriginal representation

iv-in the House of Commons , recognizing the Assembly of Nations just like a province and allowing them an allotment of seats.

I think the political suggestions I have mentioned would enable us not to just have to focus on paying for sins and allow a creative and symbolic way for the federal government to concretely respect the legal rights of our natives.

From a compensation point of view, if we properly obey the existing laws and understand that native rights regarding access to land for hunting supercedes modern laws trying to use the same property, we wouldn't have half the problems we have.

I personally think honouring native people's right to use land for hunting, also protects the environment.

In any event, its a tricky issue when say non native fishers want to access the same lakes and seas as say the MicMac who technically may have superior rights to accessing the salmon.

It gets tricky when oil and mineral developers want to strip the land of gold, copper, zinc, silver, etc., and this same land they want to strip and exploit also is subject to treaties as to land use and enjoyment with native peoples that supercedes the laws today's business people are trying to use to claim their rights.

I mean we see classic examples of forests being cut down completely violating and ignoring the treaties with native peoples to use that same land for hunting and living.

Modern commerce comes in direct conflict with the needs of rights of our natives and this is not an issue or matter of giving unfair treatment to natives its a matter of obeying the law which clearly states these treaties are in force and effect and should not be ignored by municipal or provincial governments, the federal government, international treaties or private business interests.

As for compensation for the sexual abuse at residential schools this is a painful issue I think should be kept distinct and apart from land use disputes and is highly complex and I believe better belongs as part of

class action or individual law suits for pain and suffering compensation. It is far different then say the Chinese head tax issue, because this deals with individuals who were raped and beaten and as individuals have a right to sue and see compensation for direct damages suffered.

I personally believe not just the federal government but the Catholic Church and other Christian groups have legal liability and these churches should not be exempted from paying compensation.

I also think in the Province of Quebec, you have a whole series of treaties with aboriginal groups that supercede any laws or rights Quebec seperatists think they can use to invoke for an independent nation.

The fact is oif Quebec argued for independence, the native peoples of that province have the legal right to 3/4's of the land that would have to be recognized internationally and the nation of Quebec would soon find itself an outlaw nation if it tried to ignore these treaties and not let the native peoples cede with their land particularly around the Ungava Bay region. (did I spell that right)

Again I am not a native rights lawyer so I am only expressing personal opinions.

[Riverwind]

The question asks: "What is the most you would pay...?" so the options must be answers to that question!

You can make those options a lump sum or a regular payment but they must be a dollar amount. Period.

We need some "Clarity Bill" here!

The question I asked is very clear. Meeting treaty obligations will cost money and that money must come from non-native taxpayers. You are the one who is trying to obscur the question by claiming that settling claims won't really cost any money.

Despite all of your objections I believe that you do have a limit where you would say screw the law because the natives don't deserve that much. For example, a band in Ontario is claiming most of Mississauga. The market value of this land is $300-400 billion. Can you honestly say that you would happily turn $400 billion dollars of tax money over to a small native group in the name of correcting some historical injustice?

[Charles Anthony]

The question I asked is very clear.

Yes, but the options are not.

Meeting treaty obligations will cost money and that money must come from non-native taxpayers.

Yes and nowhere was that disputed.

Can you quote anything that indicates that was disputed???????????

You are the one who is trying to obscur the question by claiming that settling claims won't really cost any money.

No and nowhere was that stated.

Can you quote anything that indicates that was stated???????????

Funny how people read what they want to read, is it not?

The market value of this land is $300-400 billion. Can you honestly say that you would happily turn $400 billion dollars of tax money over to a small native group in the name of correcting some historical injustice?

Now you have finally provided a clear option for the poll.

You must make the option a clear amount. You can not put the options as a tax rate or as a percentage of spending or as a percentage of anything. The option must be a dollar amount paid by the individual answering the question.

A more realistic set of options to your SAME QUESTION would be:

What is the most you would pay to resolve native land claims?

1- Nothing

2- $ 200 per year

3- $ 400 per year

4- $1000 per year

5- Whatever it takes.

6- I am Native so my opinion does not count

By making it a tax rate, you are asking each individual "How much do you want EVERYBODY ELSE to pay for......?"

An individual paying a lump sum or a specific sum every year (or month or whenever) has a VASTLY different economic impact and TOTAL REVENUE COLLECTED than an increase in a tax rate paid by everybody.

[Topaz]

Canadian govt became responsible when WE decided we didn't want to be British subjects anyone in 1947. Since the Canadian govt decided this we have no choice to honour ALL treaties, like or not. I, could use the money too, but like someone said a deal is a deal. You must not forget, that there are First Nation who live in the "white Man's world" and pays taxes like you and me. We have to help them make a better life for themselves after taking their ancestors land away and at times cheating them for it. Let's face it, the English and the French didn't treat the First Nation very well and today the UN says we still don't but WE are better than the US!

[Riverwind]

Canadian govt became responsible when WE decided we didn't want to be British subjects anyone in 1947. Since the Canadian govt decided this we have no choice to honour ALL treaties, like or not. I, could use the money too, but like someone said a deal is a deal.

What percentage of your personal income would you be willing to pay in order to live up to these terms of these treaties? Would you be willing to hand over 100% of your income? Would you be willing to donate all of your property? Would you give up publically funded healthcare or education? If not then your noble-sounding statements are hollow - you have your limits just like everyone else. The only difference is you put the limit higher than most.

[Riverwind]

The market value of this land is $300-400 billion. Can you honestly say that you would happily turn $400 billion dollars of tax money over to a small native group in the name of correcting some historical injustice?

Now you have finally provided a clear option for the poll.

So what's your answer to that question? Would you happily hand over $400 billion of taxpayers money to order to correct a historical injustice?

[Charles Anthony]

What percentage of your personal income would you be willing to pay in order to live up to these terms of these treaties?

My answer is 0% -- nothing.

The reason is -- [brace yourself; if you thought you hated my snarky comments enough; this one will be the kicker!] -- because I do not think we should be asking that question. It is a selfish question.

The question we should be asking is:

"Hey, Aboriginals! What do you want? I am here and I can not afford to go away to live someplace else on this planet. I can not correct the injustices from the past. Tell me what you want from ME personally and I will see what I can afford. I can not go back in time." Period.

The answers will range from:

"We aboriginals just want to assimilate with all Canadians and forget all of our claims.

"We want to share the continent with you."

"We aboriginals want EVERYTHING back and we want you ALL to leave the continent."

I am willing to bet that if we approached aboriginal land claims as equal human beings who share this planet, we might find they are willing to share. Remember that originally the natives did not consider land an "ownable" property or object. We introduced that concept to them.

What "we" are willing to pay to live up to these terms of these treaties is not going to resolve anything if "they" do not want what "we" offer. We must find out what "they" are willing to accept.

My answer is 0% until I know exactly what they want from me.

[Riverwind]

What "we" are willing to pay to live up to these terms of these treaties is not going to resolve anything if "they" do not want what "we" offer. We must find out what "they" are willing to accept.

But that is the entire point. What do we do if "they" are not willing to accept what "we" are willing to pay? There is a limit where "we" are justified in saying no. It is not selfish to ask what that limit because we cannot negotiate anything if we do know what these limits are.

My answer is 0% until I know exactly what they want from me.

That statement sounds like you want to reserve to right to say no if what they want is too much. Is that a correct interpretation?

I started this topic because I got tired of the 'deal is a deal' argument when it comes to land claims. My feeling is that the overwhelming majority of people would like to see a resolution that native groups accept, however, the overwhelming majority of people also reject the idea that Canada should be bound by the literal terms of deals signed centuries ago. In other words, native land claims are a political - not a legal issue. Pretending they are a legal issue simply drags out the process and makes it more difficult to come to a resolution.