The Cost of Native Land Claims

[Temagami Scourge]

So the Manitoba blockade is off because INAC agreed to address the outstanding claims.

If only INAC could do the same at Caledonia......

From CBC moments ago: Native leaders have cancelled a plan to block C-N Rail lines in southern Manitoba as a tactic to put pressure on the federal government to settle outstanding land claims with aboriginal groups.

The leaders announced the plan on June 17, causing consternation among CN top brass who sought a court injunction to stop the action.

Several southern Manitoba bands and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs supported the blockade, which was planned as a protest to what leaders call decades of federal government foot-dragging regarding long-standing native land claims.

The groups had planned to shut down two rail lines, beginning on June 29, for 24 hours.

First Nations lawyers, however, now say they have come to an agreement with the railway company.

C-N has agreed to write to Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice to encourage him to address the land claims, and the native groups have agreed to hold rallies instead of blockades.

Last week, a lawyer for CN pressed a Court of Queen's Bench justice to issue an immediate injunction in case the native groups decided to stage earlier blockades.

The injunction had not yet been issued.

[Melanie_]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4124194c.html

I've been following this thread with great interest, although I don't know enough about land claims to participate. It looks like the Roseau River blockade has been called off, though.

[scribblet]

We already know the impact of having non-Native authority on our lands, so why would we go back to doing the same thing over again.

Most first nations would not be economically viable as true soveriegn states, as a result, the first nations need to be part of a larger economic entity like Canada. Accepting non-aborignal authority over your lands is a price you have to pay for the priviledge of being part of Canada and having Canadian citizenship.

BTW: you have just admitted that you are demanding special rights because of your ethnic background.

I agree with you all the way Riverwind but you are being drowned out.

If natives feel they are a sovereign nation then they shouldn't be receiving billions from the taxpayers, maybe some 'foreign aid' and loans.

[Temagami Scourge]

Scrib:

I agree with you all the way Riverwind but you are being drowned out.

geez, I guess what one calls being "drowned out" is what another would call "standing up for oneself and their beliefs".

Funny....

[Charles Anthony]

BTW: you have just admitted that you are demanding special rights because of your ethnic background.

Enough with this "ethnic racist rights" fixation! It is getting tiring....

Look: if you get it on with a native man, your kid will inherit the rights of that native man.

Inherit is the word and the rights are attributed such.

Your kid's aboriginal rights are not because of ethnicity but due to inheritence.

Your kid will also inherit what his white mother bequeathes but NOT because she is white.

Inherit.

Inherit.

Inherit.

Stop the racist fixation.

[Riverwind]

Your kid's aboriginal rights are not because of ethnicity but due to inheritance.

Property and assets can be inherited. Rights cannot be inherited. A democratic multi-ethnic society is based on the principal that all people have exactly the same rights no matter who their parents were. If natives want land returned to them that they feel was unfairly expropriated then they can negotiate ownership using the same fee simple ownership terms that everyone else must use. Insisting on creating a special category of land ownership that only applies to people of their ethnic background is racist.

Stop the racist fixation.

Stop trying to justify racial discrimination.

[Charles Anthony]

Rights cannot be inherited.

Yes, they can.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

Stop trying to justify racial discrimination.

You certainly have an odd way of doing it, by maintaining that treaties were signed because Natives were taller than Caucasians, or was it because our skin was browner?

Either way, I've often maintained that the treaties were created to remove any titular claims on the land we call Canada from the Indians and over to the Crown, in exchange for a series of rights...all done under British/colonial law.

I can't help it if we just happen to be tall and brown.

[Riverwind]

the system wasn't designed to create a middle class, but to ensure that a country's wealth keeps to a minimum of hands.

Nothing could be further from truth. Fee simple ownership has been one of key factors necessary for a middle class to develop. Fee simple ownership turns land into an asset that can be bought and sold or used as collateral for loans. Being able to use their own property as collateral gives the middle class access to capital that they never would have otherwise. However, land cannot be used as collateral if the gov't does not have the power to seize it to repay debts.

Interestingly enough, some provinces have tried to overcome this issue by creating a form of land ownership called "similar to fee simple", so that taxes need not be collected from the Natives by the province, but rather that the Natives can collect those taxes from their own people.

You are talking about the municipal model I mentioned earlier. Municipalities do not pay property taxes to other levels of gov't. However, in order to levy taxes municipalities must allow every Canadian citizen living in the municipality to vote. The Nis'ga in BC negotiated a deal where they agreed to give up the right to tax non-natives in return for the right to deny voting rights to non-natives.

Yeah right...separate from Canada when the Crown still maintains the land is theirs. I'll separate as soon as the land is returned, and you can keep your money and treaty rights.

Why don't you just admit that most native groups need to be part of an economic union with a larger county like Canada. Your band would find it very difficult to earn a living if their people were not allowed to work in Canada.

[Riverwind]

Rights cannot be inherited.

Yes, they can.

Sure, if you lived in pre-1990 South Africa.

[Charles Anthony]

Rights cannot be inherited.

They can when white men write treaties.

[Temagami Scourge]

Charles"

hey, I put a picture of my youngest son and my niece at the Hwy 6 roadblock, two days after the OPP raid, on the "My Photo" section of my I.D. go check it out. I put a helmet on him in case the Caledonians decided to throw rocks at him.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

Why don't you just admit that most native groups need to be part of an economic union with a larger county like Canada. Your band would find it very difficult to earn a living if their people were not allowed to work in Canada.

I'd rather deal with the European Union than Canada. The EU pays better.

[Riverwind]

Rights cannot be inherited.

They can when white men write treaties.

Contracts that violate basic human rights are unenforceable. An employer can ask you to sign a contract that prevents you from working for a competitor for if you quit your job. However, such a contract cannot be enforced if the restriction prevents you from earning a living. The employer also has no right for compensation in these circumstances because it is 'water under the bridge'. Native treaties are unenforcable contracts for the same reason.

[Temagami Scourge]

Rights cannot be inherited.

They can when white men write treaties.

Contracts that violate basic human rights are unenforceable. An employer can ask you to sign a contract that prevents you from working for a competitor for if you quit your job. However, such a contract cannot be enforced if the restriction prevents you from earning a living. The employer also has no right for compensation in these circumstances because it is 'water under the bridge'. Native treaties are unenforcable contracts for the same reason.

River: Right now, treaties have been incorporated into Canadian law. If they aren't enforceable, then you better let the Government know ASAP, because they are certainly enforcing them.

But on another note, you seek to interpret treaties using non-constitutional laws as examples, and this is a common failing that you consistently make. Bear in mind that they are constitutionally protected, so it makes it that much harder to change them at will, which you maintain can happen.

If that was the case, wouldn't things have changed a long time ago?

[Riverwind]

But on another note, you seek to interpret treaties using non-constitutional laws as examples, and this is a common failing that you consistently make. Bear in mind that they are constitutionally protected, so it makes it that much harder to change them at will, which you maintain can happen.

If that was the case, wouldn't things have changed a long time ago?

Most people don't realize the consequences of these constitutionally protected rights or they think they just mean natives can go out a shoot a few elk without getting a permit first. Once people in urban centers wake up and realize what these rights mean there will be pressure to change the constitution. Events like Caledonia are a double edged sword - on one hand they may trigger a few concessions from the gov't. On the other hand, they scare people when they hear that natives are claiming large tracts of land in urban centers.

The Tsawwassen first nation in Vancouver is close to a treaty settlement but one requirement is that land that is currently protected in Agricultural Land Reserve be opened up for development. This threatens to split the NDP in two because many of the urban yuppies who support the abstract concenpt of native rights because it makes them feel good about themselves are having second thoughts if it means they actually have to sacrifice something.

[Temagami Scourge]

Well would you look at that...Indians giving back money owed to them by treaty....

Globe & Mail article

Geez...it's the amount that gets me. The funny thing is the "$10 billion" getting thrown around these threads, when the $216 reality sounds so much more....real.

[Charles Anthony]

Well, would you look at this:

these constitutionally protected rights

Finally! You admit it!!!!!

There is hope!

I finally feel like I have accomplished something useful in this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Riverwind]

Well, would you look at this:

these constitutionally protected rights

Finally! You admit it!!!!! There is hope!

The consititution can be changed if necessary.

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

...good about themselves are having second thoughts if it means they actually have to sacrifice something.

I'll agree on this point. It's not a question of second thoughts, but more a matter of the Crown being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Legally, the Natives often have the weight of law on their side vis-a-vis the constitution, but politically, any government that signs off on a land claim is under threat in the next election, and the opposition starts screaming that if they were in power, they'd reverse any agreement.

So we are stuck with an unending series of Caledonias.

Like I've long maintained...it's cheaper for the Crown to drag things throught the negotiation process and the courts than it is by actually settling claims.

I often wonder about the impartiality of SCC justices who may own homes or cottages on disputed lands...will they rule in favour of natives, in which case a precedent is set, or find a way around a solution, or better yet, fob it off on the Crown to find a political solution...

[Temagami Scourge]

River:

The consititution can be changed if necessary.

Well, at least now I know you are not a lawyer....

[Riverwind]

I often wonder about the impartiality of SCC justices who may own homes or cottages on disputed lands...will they rule in favour of natives, in which case a precedent is set, or find a way around a solution, or better yet, fob it off on the Crown to find a political solution...

The SCC justices are there to preserve the social order. They will never make any ruling that would create social chaos. The SCC ruling on the clarity act is a perfect example - from a strictly legal perspective the SCC could have ruled that Quebec had no right to separate, however, it realized that such a ruling would have inflamed nationalist feelings in Quebec and possibly lead to a nasty break up of the country. Instead, the SCC accepted the principle that a democratic vote could be the basis for a break up of the country and sent a message to extremists on both sides that they should cool it.

You saw the same sort of behavior with the flip flopping on the Marshall decision. The SCC will never do more than encourage both sides to find a political solution. The concept of aboriginal title may be mentioned in the constitution but it is so vaguely defined that the SCC can rule almost anyway they want.

Personally, I don't understand why more native groups won't take cash and fee simple lands. I would have no problems looking after myself and future generations for a fraction of the cash and land that I have seen offered. It seems counter productive to hold out for a future SCC ruling that may be generations in coming and could be overrulled by parliment the day after.