The Cost of Native Land Claims

[Charles Anthony]

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?

That is a correct interpretation but it is more than that.

You could say that I will reserve the right to say "no" because I can not afford to live anywhere else on this planet. I can not afford to move. Therefore, if they ask more than I can afford, by default, saying "I can not afford that much." is the same as saying "no" to their request. I know that explanation is a simple cop-out. In my bold opinion, it is the smartest and most practical answer.

Here is where my "more than that" comes in. I am a gambler. I am willing to take the chance that the aboriginals:

1) do not ONLY want money from us. (We give them a lot already.) I think they want a different kind of respect than we have afforded them so far.

2) are willing to share the country if we are open to a more environmentally-friendly concept of respecting and conserving the land.

I can not say exactly what aboriginals want. It is up to them to say it. However, most of the young aboriginals (in Ontario, B.C., Yukon and Innu) of whom I have met are very peaceful people. I have dealt with some who live on and off reserves. They do not seem to harbor any ill feelings living side by side with white men today. I believe the violent conflicts arise when we disrespect them and their heritage.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

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.

Treaties and contracts must be treated as legal issues lest warfare become, once again, the main bargaining tool. Britain had a deal with China to turn over Hong Kong...from...

http://www.island.net/~rjbw/hktp.html

The island of Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain by the Treaty of Nanking (1842) which concluded the first Anglo-Chinese ("Opium") War. Britain took the nearby Kowloon Peninsula, on the mainland, in 1861, and negotiated a 99-year lease of the adjacent "New Territories" in 1898.

The entire Colony was returned to Chinese governance when this lease ran out in 1997.

Both sides honoured this treaty, even though political events changed drastically around it.

Perhaps one way to force the hand of those involved in the treaty is to stop payments on the cheques, and go to 'arbitration'. I do not know enough about the treaties to say whether they are made 'in perpetuity' or not, but if they are, then it is 'tough luck' for 'whitey'. The other side of the coin, (and what I feel wasn't addressed in your poll) is that if 'we' disagree with the terms of the contract, then obviously we should give the land back. IOW, I can't say to my landlord "I am tired of paying rent, I declare that I own the house now". So what if the landlord died and bequeathed the property to their heirs. It makes no difference to the lease.

[Riverwind]

Both sides honoured this treaty, even though political events changed drastically around it.

Not really a good example. Britain was not obligated to hand over Hong Kong island. However, Britain decided it did not want to risk having a hostile relationship with China by holding on to it. It is quite likely that China would have resorted to varying forms of extortion to get control of the island if Britian refused.

Furthermore, China has broke many of the terms of the treaty it signed with Britain to gain control of Hong Kong Island (i.e. refusing to grant democratic rights to the terroritory). On the whole, the hand over of Hong Kong proves that political convenience has always been more important than the text of international treaties.

[August1991]

This is without a doubt a very tough question.

It's not a tough question. Your long discussion shows that. Most land claims have been settled. It remains to negotiate some others, and it is politically easier (and cheaper) to delay negotiating them. Natives are using political means to dispute their existing status but that's normal in a democracy. (Think of striking French truck drivers.)

[Riverwind]

IOW, I can't say to my landlord "I am tired of paying rent, I declare that I own the house now". So what if the landlord died and bequeathed the property to their heirs. It makes no difference to the lease.

Actually you can. You just need to make the case that it is in the public interest for you to own the land and have the gov't expropriate it. You would have pay fair value to the landlord but what the 'fair value' is decided by the gov't - not the landlord's heirs.

It is not in the public interest to allow Canadians to be exposed to unlimited liability because of old treaties. The gov't has the power to protect the public interest even if this means violating the property rights of some individuals.

[August1991]

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.

What parallel universe are you living in Mr. Anthony? You think the other side will happily co-operate but you don't want to commit to anything until you know for sure.

Settling a land claim is going to cost somebody something. You can't avoid that simple fact. We are cutting up a cake here. Somebody's going to get a smaller piece.

It appears you want to have your cake, and eat it too.

[August1991]

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.

Riverview, it's a bit of both - political and legal. The Constitution 1982 says we have to make good on promises to Indians. Canadian governments sometimes walk away from their obligations but this is a case where it lacks the political will to do it.

All things considered, it's in the white man's interest to continue to negotiate this. I wouldn't be surprised if this is still under negotiation in 2030.

IOW, Riverview your premise is that non-natives are tired of this and want to settle one way or another. You have phrased in terms of: "How much would you pay to solve this issue once and for all?" Most people have said they'd pay nothing, and a few (Mr. Anthony) have gone into a parallel universe where we can settle but it'll cost nobody anything.

So, if you were PM of Canada, what would you do? You continue to negotiate.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

The gov't has the power to protect the public interest even if this means violating the property rights of some individuals.

Indeed they do it often. Never with such wide-ranging effect, though.

August1991 asks a good question...

So, if you were PM of Canada, what would you do?

Would you tear up the treaties and try to negotiate a one-time buy-out, 'take it or leave it'? Or give them nothing?(Which might lead to a small civil war.)

[Live From China]

but you don't want to commit to anything until you know for sure.

Well, isn't this the ultimate nature of business dealings or contracts?

[Charles Anthony]

What parallel universe are you living in Mr. Anthony?

A universe where you and I do NOT KNOW exactly what the aboriginals.

If "negotiating" involves "finding out exactly what aboriginals want" than I am all for it but only if we start with the first step. Here is a question for everybody:

What exactly do various aboriginals want?

Until that question is answered, EVERYTHING we discuss amongst ourselves is useless (except for assigning consulting fees and research grants to "friends" of the federal government to the year 2030) in negotiating land claims.

We are asking "How much do you want to settle land claims?" of people would DO NOT EVEN KNOW what settlement may cost. Keep chasing your tail.

[Live From China]

Precisely!

We cannot settle anything, until "we" know what "they" want. Or conversely, "they" know what "we" are prepared to pay. To do so would simply be a foolish waste of time.

As for the choice in the poll, "Whatever It Takes", this is just a silly (and unabashedly politically correct) choice.

There has to be an upper limit. Since it is undefined, this takes me back to my originally point. And no one is going to throw away the lives of future Canadians by giving someone a blank cheque. This would be penalizing someone who had nothing to do with the situation or problem in the first place. Correcting previous wrongs should not utilize a sins-of-the-fathers approach!

[theloniusfleabag]

Hmmm...

Firstly, I am not a tourist here. I am working here and living in an apartment.

Secondly, how is it that I can routinely access Amnesty International, etc? And if there are areas where people have more freedom, then that shows that China is changing.

Come on, why don't you take up my challenge and fly over here to prove that Kindred is wrong?

Yet you use 'we' (solving Canadian problems..)

Precisely!

We cannot settle anything, until "we" know what "they" want.

[smells 'trollish' here]

[Live From China]

First, let's get one thing clear: I am a Canadian and I still pay taxes in Canada.

Second, I am definitely not trolling. I am trying to take part in this discussion. I agree with Charles Anthony (and we definitely don't always agree): how can any party settle with another unless they know what is wanted or required? Sounds like common sense to me.

[Kindred]

I am appalled at the ignorance being displayed here towards Canadians who are working overseas, just what is your problem with that?

At least we are paying taxes and NOT using the medical system or any of the benefits our taxes are paying for - so get over it.

We are still entitled to an opinion on how our Tax dollars are being spent.

You better get used to it given the sheer numbers of Canadians employed outside this country for Canadian companies. Have you never heard of the Global Economy?

I would wager the people you are bashing for calling themselves "Canadians" when they are working outside the country have lived in Canada longer than you have. Since when does leaving Canada cancel your citizenship?

It obvious who the real trolls here are.

[Temagami Scourge]

I think Chuck A has it right with the second post in. River (surprise, surprise) is making assumptions that everyone else is quick to chime in on. Everyone here is assuming that money is the key issue, and there are indeed natives who feel that money is a cure-all, but that is not quite the case.

I can't speak for others, but my interest is in control of the land and waters. Right now, current governments have proven woefully ineffective at looking after the land and water. I would like to see more of both come under Native control, in the same manner that the Crown currently controls lands and water.

Secondly, I'd like to see Crown interference in Aboriginal affairs ended, and the Aboriginal people turning to a modern style of Native governance. I know this is a sore spot from some Canadians, but too bad. If a non-native lives on "Native" land, then the Natives will determine how they will participate in political discourse, unless the non-Natives choose to move away. This may not involve voting, or voting rights. If someone cries foul, then I can't think of a better precedent than pointing at the "Township of the Archipelago" created by the rich folks in Georgian Bay, or even in Temagami. In both cases, many Americans are property holders in these areas, and they cannot vote in any Canadian election (and it kills them, from my perspective), so they have no say in how high taxes are raised, or how the land will be subdivided or anything.

If rich Americans can still reside here for months at a time -with no political representation- than anyone can do it.

As I've long said, I'll be the first native to gladly sign away any special treaty rights or tax exemption in exchange for getting the land back. I wouldn't even need money. Hand over the land and keep your money...no problem by me....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Temagami Scourge,

I wouldn't even need money. Hand over the land and keep your money...no problem by me....

Indeed, that would likely be the best solution for you (and everyone, but most people would not like it, and probably launch a 'war of conquest).

I have been to many reserves in Alberta, and met many different people, both 'traditional' and 'non-traditional 'natives'. The one common belief they all seemed to share was "Don't interfere with the cycle of life".

I can't speak for others, but my interest is in control of the land and waters. Right now, current governments have proven woefully ineffective at looking after the land and water

Without interference, these things have been, and will always, be there. However, many think that 'interference' is 'progress'.

[Temagami Scourge]

Theo:

Indeed, that would likely be the best solution for you (and everyone, but most people would not like it, and probably launch a 'war of conquest).

I never said that Native land meant everyone else out. If I had control of the land, Canadians would be my prime renters. I'd even be willing to sell land, but the land would still have "Native Crown" title attached to it, so that if it was sold to a non-Native, it would be taxed by the Natives, and it wouldn't revert to "Crown" land, like what happened in the U.S.

It would mean a complete restructuring of Canadian law. All the land claims that I have worked on get stumped at the "Aboriginal title" concept because the Crown does not have a land holding category called "Aboriginal title". They have fee simple title, land use permits and business development titles, but no Aboriginal title. Many bands don't want reserve land created because that means that the feds are the ultimate owners...and the Natives want to be the ultimate owners (my concept).

Without interference, these things have been, and will always, be there. However, many think that 'interference' is 'progress'.

When I was referring to interference, I was referring to Aboriginal political systems, decision-making powers and the like...not interference in land and water issues. We would have to work together on those because the environment is intertwined in such a way that an impact in one part of a watershed affects the entire watershed, land included.

[Temagami Scourge]

Theo:

Here is a fine example of the difference in thought between Aboriginal people and mainstream folks:

Demographically speaking, we do not need anywhere near as many immigrants as we now accept. We are, realistically, a small nation, unless you count all that empty land where few if any immigrants have an interest in. We are a narrow strip of land along the US border, with the rest being largely vacation land, farmland, timberland, and wasteland.

The above was a post by Argus in the "Immigration" thread. Since he is not discussing Native issues, he lets slip that he views parts of our country as "wasteland".

I don't see the land in that fashion...even the high arctic has an incomparable beauty that takes one's breath away, whereas people like Argus merely view it as "wasteland"....until they find diamonds or oil, and then it quickly becomes a "Canadian resource".

The bottom line is that people like Argus -and there are many of them in this country- don't appreciate the bounty and beauty this land has to offer, and they treat it as such. I don't want to pinpoint Argus, but it is attitudes like the one he expressed that allows people to piss in lakes and toss their Tim Horton's cup out the window on a long drive.

I respect the land and the water because both elements are life-givers in my faith. The Christian faith suggest domination over the land and water, and does not teach respect of either because they are not "alive" by Christian standards.

that will have to change, and if I can do it, then anyone can.

[Kindred]

I think enough people have been burned on leasing land from natives that not a lot would be willing to walk down that road again.

As for Canadians agreeing to give up their right to own their own home I think you can forget that one as well. That was the whole purpose in immigrating to Canada.

If you total up all the land claims in Canada I believe they encompass more than 100% of Canada, more like 200%

I for one have no intention of handing my house, which I paid for, and continue to pay for, over to you or anyone else. That of course would involve compensation for all the displaced white people - how much are YOU willing to pay for that?

I think we know the answer to that.

Maybe the non-native people should take everything that is theirs, made by them, constructed by them, developed by them, all schools, hospitals, medical services and technology, highways, bridges, airports, utilities, such as phone service, electricity, etc etc etc EVERYTHING including Social Services and tax dollars, grocery stores, malls, etc etc - and immigrate to a country where we would be welcome. There arent that many of us after all.

Blow up the oil and gas wells, the dams, all the buildings and roads, and return Canada to a "natural" state and let the natives have it, leave it as was before Eurpopeans arrived here.

Including of course the houses and schools and recreation centres and everything built for natives, and let them have at it seeing as our presence has so handicapped and harmed the way of life they had before our arrival. No pickup trucks, no ATVs, no ski dos or guns of any kind, no manufactured clothing, no manufactured food, just the natives and the water and the land .. works for me.

Do you know how to make a bow and arrow? A flint arrow head? Have at it -- I am willing to pull out of Canada and take EVERYTHING with me ---

The question is are you willing to go back to your "traditional" way of life? Traditional native life with ALL the land handed over to you and all the resources does not to me mean IMO that you get to live in your European style home, watch satelite TV, wear manufactured clothing, eat food bought at a grocery store and hold a hand out for "rent cheques" drive on highways paid for and built by non-natives --- Isnt that just a tad hypocritical?

I hope you dont have dental work or glasses we would have to reclaim before we leave here.

I think you have a great idea, return Canada to the natives, as the Europeans found it.

Disclaimer: It is not my intent to infer ALL natives feel this way, nor that ALL natives chose to not contribute to the progress of this country. Those who do are more than welcome to come with us, I dont think they would like what would be left of Canada

[Riverwind]

I never said that Native land meant everyone else out. If I had control of the land, Canadians would be my prime renters. I'd even be willing to sell land, but the land would still have "Native Crown" title attached to it, so that if it was sold to a non-Native, it would be taxed by the Natives, and it wouldn't revert to "Crown" land, like what happened in the U.S.

As it stands to today crown land is owned by all Canadians and the elected representatives are responsible for managing that land for the good of all. You want to change it so Crown land is owned by a small group of Canadians identified by their ethnic origin. Such a system is basically Apartheid by another name. If natives want to have collective ownership of the land then they can form a corporation and purchase that land like any other Canadian. Land claims settlements could include the cash necessary to make the purchases, however, these native corporations would still be subject to all federal, provincial and municipal laws.

It would mean a complete restructuring of Canadian law. All the land claims that I have worked on get stumped at the "Aboriginal title" concept because the Crown does not have a land holding category called "Aboriginal title". They have fee simple title, land use permits and business development titles, but no Aboriginal title. Many bands don't want reserve land created because that means that the feds are the ultimate owners...and the Natives want to be the ultimate owners (my concept).

Creating 'aboriginal title' land category simply entrenches racism into our land ownership structure and is completely incompatible with the prinicpals of liberal democracy. Fee simple title is all that is necessary to provide a stable economic base for aboriginal groups.

[Kindred]

Oh yah we would take all our Armed Forced with us of course, which would mean you would either become part of the US or another country, perhaps from the Middle East would move in and claim Canada - a country without defenses, Parliament, infra structure or a recognized place in world affairs.

The US border would be slammed shut so fast you wouldnt be able to fart across it.

Do you think "Canadians" who have no rights or status in Canada are going to defend the land for you? LMAO - brilliant solution you came up with.

[Temagami Scourge]

Kindred:

Maybe the non-native people should take everything that is theirs, made by them, constructed by them, developed by them, all schools, hospitals, medical services and technology, highways, bridges, airports, utilities, such as phone service, electricity, etc etc etc EVERYTHING including Social Services and tax dollars, grocery stores, malls, etc etc - and immigrate to a country where we would be welcome. There arent that many of us after all.

Oh...it would just break my heart, but don't let me stop you from moving away. Please, do take everything and go. You would be teaching me an important lesson, and I'm sure I'll suffer unbearably without your presence...but feel free to leave, and take everything with you!

This is likely the best thing I've seen you say yet, but for some reason, I think you like your life here, so you'll probably stay anyway.

darn...

[Kindred]

I guess you dont like your life with all its comforts ? Do you live in a cave and eat moose you have killed with a bow and arrow? At least be honest with yourself and others -- I am leaving in August again, Canada isnt the only civilized country in the world, I work overseas ...

[Temagami Scourge]

I never said that Native land meant everyone else out. If I had control of the land, Canadians would be my prime renters. I'd even be willing to sell land, but the land would still have "Native Crown" title attached to it, so that if it was sold to a non-Native, it would be taxed by the Natives, and it wouldn't revert to "Crown" land, like what happened in the U.S.

As it stands to today crown land is owned by all Canadians and the elected representatives are responsible for managing that land for the good of all. You want to change it so Crown land is owned by a small group of Canadians identified by their ethnic origin. Such a system is basically Apartheid by another name. If natives want to have collective ownership of the land then they can form a corporation and purchase that land like any other Canadian. Land claims settlements could include the cash necessary to make the purchases, however, these native corporations would still be subject to all federal, provincial and municipal laws.

It would mean a complete restructuring of Canadian law. All the land claims that I have worked on get stumped at the "Aboriginal title" concept because the Crown does not have a land holding category called "Aboriginal title". They have fee simple title, land use permits and business development titles, but no Aboriginal title. Many bands don't want reserve land created because that means that the feds are the ultimate owners...and the Natives want to be the ultimate owners (my concept).

Creating 'aboriginal title' land category simply entrenches racism into our land ownership structure and is completely incompatible with the prinicpals of liberal democracy. Fee simple title is all that is necessary to provide a stable economic base for aboriginal groups.

Ok...that's it. I made a promise to myself that if River brings up the "race-based" thing again, i'll agree with him.

River: You are right. The Treaties were signed because Indians were taller on average than Caucasians, so you are right about race. The Caucasians looked in awe at these tall people and just had to sign perpetual agreements with them.

Ok...so I'm being sarcastic, but it just happens so naturally around you.

As for the "apartheid" and "race-based" claptrap, the problem you are displaying is that you are making the Indians out to be one people again. When I am referring to land and water, I'm referring to my own Nation's traditional area. I have no interest in what happens among the Haida, Blackfoot, Inuit people or the Mik'maq. Just the approximately 4000 square miles that was my Nation's traditional area.

I believe that this is substantially less than 100% of Canada.

As for democracy...you are likely correct in your opinion. Voting of any kind may not matter, or maybe it would. As far as I can tell, traditional Native governments did not operate on a voting principle, so they may not in the future. However, that mechanism might be adopted if people are monetarily taxed, but that would be up to the people to decide.

I know that your heart and soul are wrapped in democracy, but let's be honest...has it been proven to be a good form of governance in this world? Remember, what works for you is not necessarily best for all. Tradionally speaking, only Crane clan people would be political leaders because that is the inherent strength of that clan. The Bear clan people would be the Warriors, or police, because that is one of the inherent aspects in that clan. Being part of the hoof clan means that I'd gravitate towards teaching, possessing knowledge and education. However, the Creator may give people in the various clans special gifts that make them stand out in the community, so that they may become leaders or teachers instead of what they normally would settle into. Likewise, when something disastrous like a wars ensues, then everyone has to become a warrior.

I'd love to go on and on about traditional governance, but I know it would be lost on you.

[Temagami Scourge]

Kindred:

I guess you dont like your life with all its comforts ?

Well, if I must suffer from your moving away, then that's just a chance I'll have to take.

Do you live in a cave and eat moose you have killed with a bow and arrow?

For some reason I think you believe I do. Fortunately, I do have some of the skills needed to live off the land (in northern Ontario). I'd be lost on the prairies, or in the mountains.

At least be honest with yourself and others -- I am leaving in August again, Canada isnt the only civilized country in the world, I work overseas ...

I am being honest with myself. If you took away all your tools and houses, we'd just make more tools and build more houses after you leave. Do you think Natives are skilless and stupid? don't you think that there are Natives who know the smelting process? or are tool and die makers? carpenters, contractors?

Go ahead, take all you want, but you can't take the knowledge in our heads.

Sorry....and have a nice trip. I'll keep the country warm until you make it back here.