Privatizing Aboriginal Reserves


petros
+1
#31
Dumpster needs a job, something to feel good about, then maybe he can respect himself and men with balls.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

I am not aboriginal but I have property I have been entrusted with on Cape Breton Island.
Our family has a connection to that land that goes back several generations. As for a spiritual connection, I would say yes. A couple of months ago I might not have agreed with that statement but today I do. I walked across it for the first time as belonging to me. My
Great Grand father, my Grandfather and my Father owned it before me as it became mineonly two years ago.
I remember them talking about it being on a Queen Victoria Deed and how they felt about it. I remember their descriptions and its location and how it fit into their culture, and it being by the sea. Yes I would say that people can develop a spiritual connection to a land that is part of your heritage.
Some people don't have and that is fine, but when you are critical of natives or others that do, I feel you may be boarding on being disrespectful of other peoples beliefs. It may be intentional or by a lack of understand of others. I am not outraged though I just feel sorry for you in the fact that you cannot grasp how other feel. You notice I did not say how others think, but how they
feel there is a difference between the two. That is too bad because we can learn a great deal about people and how others view the world if we can be respectful about others feel about things. I do recognize there are questions within the native communities and its their business the...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
People can have all the spirtual feelings they want, and they likely do without any intervention or bother from me. But when it is brought into law as an argument, then I strongly challenge that, because in this case it squanders public funds. Just to repeat, people can be spiritual all they want, but when they bring it into the public realm, I strongly disapprove.

When something is brought into the public realm, then it is open for discussion, good and bad. Some people don't like that, that's not my problem. Belief is not a fact, sorry. Beliefs like many other things, such as dated social ideas, can be challenged and have to be for democracy and progress.
 
CDNBear
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

But when it is brought into law as an argument, then I strongly challenge that, because in this case it squanders public funds.

Culture is a factor in court cases all the time, civil and criminal.

Quote:

Just to repeat, people can be spiritual all they want, but when they bring it into the public realm, I strongly disapprove.

Who brought it into the public realm?

Quote:

When something is brought into the public realm, then it is open for discussion, good and bad.

You keep saying it was brought into the public realm, but haven't established how.

Quote:

Some people don't like that, that's not my problem.

We already know what you problems are. A serious lack of education in First Nations, and Canadian History.

Quote:

Belief is not a fact, sorry.

You should be, because in a court of law, 'belief' is very much part of the process.

[/quote]Beliefs like many other things, such as dated social ideas, can be challenged and have to be for democracy and progress.[/QUOTE]Thank God we have laws that prevent the mob rule you so eagerly seek.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Dumpster needs a job, something to feel good about, then maybe he can respect himself and men with balls.

Piles of steaming landfill here. Very very brilliant. You have no respect for yourself or anyone else.
 
Ariadne
#35
Privatizing is an excellent euphamism for giving Canadians the opportunity to relinquish responsibility for all those extra expenses/discounts ... unless it's going to turn into one of those long discussions where everything is settled and then it has to be redone from the beginning. That's a waste of time and money. I'm in favour of privatizing the Reserves such that they deal directly with their preferred organization and the federal government has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
 
Cannuck
#36
Treat them like municipalities. Here in Alberta we have the MGA and I assume most provinces have the same thing,

www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/m26.pdf (external - login to view)
 
Ariadne
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Treat them like municipalities. Here in Alberta we have the MGA and I assume most provinces have the same thing,

www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/m26.pdf (external - login to view)

That's a good idea ... let the privatization lead to self-governance and self-reliance.
 
CDNBear
+2
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I'm in favour of privatizing the Reserves such that they deal directly with their preferred organization and the federal government has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

What do you mean by privatizing?

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Treat them like municipalities.

Ahhh, the ever vigilant concepts and bigotries of colonialism.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't the very first question be, what Nations are required and what is the minimum level of service that is required? That's the difference between you and I. When it comes to problem solving, I like to start at the beginning and work my way logically through the problem. It may be more difficult than the generalizations you use, but in the long run, I think the extra effort is worth it.

Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

That's a good idea ... let the privatization lead to self-governance and self-reliance.

Which one is a good idea, incorporation or privatization?
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 30th, 2011 at 06:27 AM..
 
Ariadne
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

What do you mean by privatizing?

Ahhh, the ever vigilant concepts and bigotries of colonialism.

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't the very first question be, what Nations are required and what is the minimum level of service that is required? That's the difference between you and I. When it comes to problem solving, I like to start at the beginning and work my way logically through the problem. It may be more difficult than the generalizations you use, but in the long run, I think the extra effort is worth it.

Which one is a good idea, incorporation or privatization?

Not at all. The cart is already out of the blocks and no one really cares whether the horse or the cart came out first ... the minimum required ought to have been sorted out in the last hundred years or so. Is the expectation that Reserves are perpetually supported by and reliant on the Canadian government, or do they want some sort of sovereignty such that they are autonomous, can travel freely without passports and can function within our politically correct, multicultural country? If Reserves have special consideration, should all Canadian cultures have special privileges, or does it become the responsibility, at some point, of our multicultural groups to be self-sustaining?
 
SLM
+4
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Not at all. The cart is already out of the blocks and no one really cares whether the horse or the cart came out first ... the minimum required ought to have been sorted out in the last hundred years or so. Is the expectation that Reserves are perpetually supported by and reliant on the Canadian government, or do they want some sort of sovereignty such that they are autonomous, can travel freely without passports and can function within our politically correct, multicultural country? If Reserves have special consideration, should all Canadian cultures have special privileges, or does it become the responsibility, at some point, of our multicultural groups to be self-sustaining?

Ok, so just off the top of my head.

It's a false assumption that no one really cares. Perhaps you meant to say that you don't care? But many do, count me amongst them.

Are you under the assumption that the Reserves receive money from the Federal Government out of the goodness of it's heart? Here's a hint, the funding is actually a payment owed under a contract. A contract which, by the way, has prominent mention within the constitution. They are not living on our land, it's the other way around.

Lastly, First Nations are First Nations because they were first. Not just another cultural group within our society. I'd go so far as to say that without them, our society would not be our society as we've come to know it.

Now, I will openly admit that I'm not completely knowledgable about all the particulars of treaty obligations. I'm not certain whether privatization necessarily means giving up rights under a treaty. But I do understand the basics and the history enough to know that this is not a simple thing to change.
 
Cannuck
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

That's a good idea ... let the privatization lead to self-governance and self-reliance.

Not only self reliant and self governance but taxpayers monies are well accounted for. I haven't seen a could argument against it.
 
CDNBear
+2
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Not only self reliant and self governance but taxpayers monies are well accounted for. I haven't seen a could argument against it.

That's funny, because I haven't seen a could (LOL) argument for it.

Perhaps honing your problem solving skills, would help.
 
Cannuck
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That's funny, because I haven't seen a could (LOL) argument for it.

Perhaps honing your problem solving skills, would help.

Well, since you want to make an issue out of a typo...

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

No one in that province tought Wasiq Waqar how to take a joke?

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself? You know I'm gonna keep that gem and pull it out every single time you make fun of a typo (and at least mine was a typo and not an inability to spell).
 
gerryh
+3
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Well, since you want to make an issue out of a typo...



Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself? You know I'm gonna keep that gem and pull it out every single time you make fun of a typo (and at least mine was a typo and not an inability to spell).



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Bear drops a H and that's an inability to spell. You, on the other hand, type in a completely different word and call it a typo.
 
CDNBear
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Well, since you want to make an issue out of a typo...

Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself? You know I'm gonna keep that gem and pull it out every single time you make fun of a typo (and at least mine was a typo and not an inability to spell).

You do that (I near busted a gut picturing you scouring pages of my posts looking for a spelling error though, thanks for the laugh). I have enough of your gems to write a book on how not to debate, discuss, converse. Not that the illumination of your typo was the gist of the post. (I was actually hoping to see a real argument for either a public incorporation or privatization. I guess you don't actually have one) But your comparison of a dropped letter, to the completely erroneous replacement of an entire word, shows you're grasping at straws.

But carry on, I find it extremely funny to watch.

Perhaps if you spent more time problem solving the problems in your posts, lies, inconsistencies, generalization, fallacious arguments and so on, and less time trying to find problems in other peoples posts, you wouldn't make it so easy for me to point out your hypocrisy and stupidity.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Bear drops a H and that's an inability to spell. You, on the other hand, type in a completely different word and call it a typo.

He has to justify his perceived self worth somehow.
 
gerryh
+2
#46
Just want to point out one little thing to those that think that if First Nations reserves are turned into municipalities or given complete autonomy and the rights to private ownership, that that will be the end of payments from Canada to the First Nations should think again. The payments are for land given by the First Nations to Canada and her predecessors. The only way to stop those payments is to negotiate a "buy out" with the individual First Nations tribes.
 
CDNBear
+1
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Just want to point out one little thing to those that think that if First Nations reserves are turned into municipalities or given complete autonomy and the rights to private ownership, that that will be the end of payments from Canada to the First Nations should think again. The payments are for land given by the First Nations to Canada and her predecessors. The only way to stop those payments is to negotiate a "buy out" with the individual First Nations tribes.

Stop it GH, you're throwing a wrench into some peoples problem solving problems. You know, where they claim to want start at the beginning and work from there?
 
Cannuck
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Bear drops a H and that's an inability to spell. You, on the other hand, type in a completely different word and call it a typo.

Apparently you don't know how to read or spell. He didn't drop an H but that is entirely irrelevant. The point is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm really not surprised that I have to explain it to you.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Just want to point out one little thing to those that think that if First Nations reserves are turned into municipalities or given complete autonomy and the rights to private ownership, that that will be the end of payments from Canada to the First Nations should think again. The payments are for land given by the First Nations to Canada and her predecessors. The only way to stop those payments is to negotiate a "buy out" with the individual First Nations tribes.

It's not about ending payments. It's about accountability. Again (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record), I'm not surprised I have to explain it to you.
 
The Old Medic
#49
"DumpTheMonarchy" wants to eliminate all programs for anyone that is "down and out", not JUST the ones for Natives.

What he fails to understand is that when you are caught in a world where your culture is downgraded, where you lack a decent education, where you are raised in abject poverty, and where you are treated as something significantly less than a human being by uncaring people like Dump (and a large majority of Canadians), it is actually very difficult o to pull yourself out of the mire.

Far too much of the money supposedly going to Natives is lost in corruption, before it ever reaches the people it was intended for.

Native peoples in Canada are not allowed to make even the most basic decisions about themselves. By Federal law, they CAN NOT determine who is, and who is not a member of their own Tribe or Band.

They can not determine who is, and who is not, even a Native!

They are denied the right to manage the lands that they live on.

They are denied the right to control the education of their children.

For over 300 years, the Government of Canada has had essentially one goal, to eliminate all Natives. They have tried to do this by military force, by "forced assimilation", by kidnapping the children of natives and forcing them into residential schools where they were physically, emotionally/psychologically and sexually abused; and then sent back home as very, very sick people.

Then, the overwhelmingly white population says, "Why don't you do something to help yourselves?"

It will take at least a couple of generations, if not more, to overcome the effects of those residential schools.

It was only in the 1980's that a Native woman was no longer stripped of her status as a Native if she married a non-native person. That change in the law ONLY came about after Canada was cited by the United Nations for violating the rights of native women with that policy, for the 7th time!

The United States, which has had it's own dismal history in treating Native peoples as something less than human; is light years ahead of Canada in how it treats its natives.

Add to this the simple fact that Canada refuses to live up to two treaties that essentially provided for it to become an world recognized entity. Those two treaties were between Great Britain and the Unites States of American, that resolved the Revolutionary War, and then the War of 1812.

In BOTH of those treaties, the rights of Native people to cross back and forth between Canada and the USA were guaranteed. They were to be allowed to move any of their personal possession, to trade freely among themselves, and to live on either side of that newly established border without any government interference at all.

The United States STILL honors those provisions. ANY Canadian native person, that is 50% Native or more, can move to the USA without a "Green Card", without a Visa, without any background check at all. They can obtain a Social Security Card, and gain any employment that they can get. They can move all personal possession into the USA (so long as that personal possession is not illegal, such a marijuana or narcotics, etc.), without any duty at all.

Canada on the other hand DOES NOT recognize such rights. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada said that those treaties simply do not apply.

Yes indeed, the government of Canada dose so much for the Native people. So much that is totally and completely designed to destroy them as a People, to destroy their culture and essentially either force them to become "white men" or be exterminated.

And this movement to "privatize" the reserves is just more of the same.
 
Kakato
+2
#50
Quite a bit of ignorance here about native culture and spirituality and some folks just cant get the old stereotype of natives they have had all their lives out of their heads.
I can honestly say I thought that way at one time also but am wiser now to the way they live and their culture and we can learn lots from listening to the elders.

Anyone who has ever had the priviledge of participating in an smudge ceremony where the eagle feather is passed around will know that their way of life is different,focusing more on family then on material goods.

Dump should endeavor to be included in one of these ceremonies,i'm sure it would open his eyes and I would be real interested in what he would say when the sacred eagle feather was passed to him.
 
CDNBear
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

He didn't drop an H but that is entirely irrelevant.

Glad we cleared that up.

Quote:

The point is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm really not surprised that I have to explain it to you.

I am. Since I get to point out you throwing stones in your glass house, almost daily. Which is one of the reasons I find you oh so entertaining.

Like this string... Expect to pay more to use national parks

You should probably put the stones down now. Winter's here and you don't have many panes of glass left.

Your hypocrisy is palpable.

Quote:

It's not about ending payments. It's about accountability. Again (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record), I'm not surprised I have to explain it to you.

Neither am I since you've never actually put forward a reasoned proposal, but instead have simply been the purveyor of lies, generalizations, and silly diversions.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record... Perhaps if you spent more time problem solving the problems in your posts, lies, inconsistencies, generalization, fallacious arguments and so on, and less time trying to find problems in other peoples posts, you wouldn't make it so easy for me to point out your hypocrisy and stupidity.

Just sayin'.
Last edited by CDNBear; Dec 31st, 2011 at 08:41 AM..
 
Machjo
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Here an organization for lawyers is adamantly against privation of aboriginal reserve lands by Ottawa. Among other specious arguments they use is that aboriginals have a "spiritual" connection to the land. Comic. No one has a spiritual connection to the land, this is from the age of magic and superstition that science has destroyed with the Scientific Revolution. It is time the legal community got with the times.

The article states right wing zealots support this, odd, I've voted for the NDP.

Lawyers want the status quo, which means don't question the millions and billions of dollars that keep coming their way. Time to stop this Canadian corruption.


Why privatization of reserve lands risks aboriginal ruin (external - login to view)



Why privatization of reserve lands risks aboriginal ruin

by John Rwinski

September 24, 2010 issue


The federal government is exploring a voluntary regime of private ownership of reserve lands in Canada. This is an idea that is premature and short-sighted.

Advocates of this proposal say that the current communal stewardship of traditional lands by First Nations stifles development and stunts financial opportunities for individuals. By permitting private ownership, individuals would have the opportunity, among other things, to mortgage and sell lands.

In other words, what “they” want is for Canada’s indigenous peoples who live on reserves to be beholden to outside financial interests.
A near universal facet of indigenous cultures is a spiritual connection to land. Land is not to be bartered and sold; it is part of who we are. The inspirational tenet of this way of life is the spirit of working collaboratively for the greater good of the collective community, as opposed to the crass pursuit of individual gain at the expense of others.

Right-wing zealots call this pursuit of communal goals “socialism.” It is contrary to the ethnocentric conviction that one must be able to put a fence around one’s yard to be a “free” person. Of course for most, that fence means taking on hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, by which multi-billion dollar banks make massive profits. The greed of lenders in turn leads to irresponsible loan commitments. This revered notion of private property very nearly put the world into financial ruin mere months ago.

Proponents of privatization exhibit a xenophobic distaste for the idea that an entire community can find a way to use land that benefits as many individuals as possible, without the need to trade this most sacred resource — so essential to the lives of everyone — like one would trade old hockey cards with schoolyard friends.

At present, governments and businesses owe billions of dollars to First Nations pursuant to treaties and for exploitation of traditional lands. Compensation is tediously slow in arriving and hard-fought by those who owe the money. Is this new proposal a distraction from the obligation to compensate aboriginal peoples for centuries of taking? It proposes the “privilege” of borrowing against the little bit of land yet to be stolen. Indigenous peoples can be debt-ridden like the rest of Canada — absolving the Crown from meeting its own financial and fiduciary obligations.

This philosophy is like saying, “We will give you all the crap you want for free, you just have to build a toilet.”
Debt without a means to escape it is merely enslavement to those holding economic power. Borrowing against the value of land may allow for improvements and access to cash. But lack of education and joblessness are endemic to the majority of reserves. With no job and little schooling, how does the borrower make payments on a traditional mortgage? The doomed answer is foreclosure, and a corresponding loss of reserve lands.

Far from a slippery slope, this is the harsh conclusion one must inevitably draw to the proposal to allow borrowing against individually-owned reserve lands.

Treaties and the constitution make it clear that the Crown owes aboriginal peoples the protection of aboriginal rights and lands. This includes the right to cultural protection, education, health care, natural resources and self-government. The Crown has failed miserably in meeting its obligations in this regard. Without first addressing these protections and correspondingly making the necessary financial commitment to establish these goals, resort to a private property regime only promises to shift aboriginal economic dependency from the Crown to lenders. This is a subtle way of completing the centuries-old goal of the colonizers — assimilation — now re-packaged as “economic opportunity.”

This is not to say that someday an on-reserve private property regime could not be a useful tool in the hands of our First Nations. Reserves near urban centres, equipped with adequate training, education and infrastructure, sufficient land to meet the needs of their members, and reasonable employment rates, may find some advantage to being able to borrow against and even market portions of their lands.

It is more difficult to foresee how privatization will assist remote communities. Lands in these territories will lack any significant market value. These are Canada’s most impoverished and troubled reserves, and aside from opportunistic resource companies, little outside interest in these lands exists.

The present-day government focus should be on ensuring the basic human rights of indigenous peoples, such as potable water, suitable housing, health, training and education, control of resources, and the honour and respect of culture and identity.
Until these foundations of self-sufficiency are solidly established, a culture of indebtedness will only serve to entrench economic and social dependence on the “rest” of Canadian society that treats the on-reserve aboriginal population as second-class citizens. Ultimately, the establishment of such a regime without first addressing other shortfalls risks the absorption and annihilation of our indigenous peoples.

John Rowinski is a sole practitioner in Brooklin, Ont. In addition to his civil litigation practice, he acts for First Nations in respect of claims, negotiations and all associated legal issues.

====================

An article from The Globe and Mail discussing the same topic.

First nations property rights: Going beyond the Indian Act - The Globe and Mail

I do not know whether I am for or against privatization of reserves. I think I'm for privatization in principle, but bearing in mind our laws and constitution clearly discriminate in our favour. Just to take one of many possible examples:

If you're a unilingual Calgarian traveling to Baie St. Paul and you need help, you're guaranteed service in English by any local federal agency. As a unilingual French-speaker in Calgary likewise. Or as an MP you're guaranteed interpretation to and from English and Ferench. Not so for the unilingual Nunavummiut. Then you have the issue of all products having to be labelled in both official languages but not Inuktitut, and English and French being taught as second-languages across Canada. This creates plenty of jobs and opportunities for certain linguistic groups and not others. And yet only part of this can be attributed to the free market when we consider that official languages is not a private sector matter but one of government policy.

This is just one example of how at least some First peoples are legislatively put at a disadvantage in the market.
 
Kakato
#53
Some wisdom to live by.

From the 1927 Grand Council of American Indians


"The white people, who are trying to make us over into their image, they want us to be what they call "assimilated," bringing the Indians into the mainstream and destroying our own way of life and our own cultural patterns. They believe we should be contented like those whose concept of happiness is materialistic and greedy, which is very different from our way.
We want freedom from the white man rather than to be intergrated. We don't want any part of the establishment, we want to be free to raise our children in our religion, in our ways, to be able to hunt and fish and live in peace. We don't want power, we don't want to be congressmen, or bankers....we want to be ourselves. We want to have our heritage, because we are the owners of this land and because we belong here. The white man says, there is freedom and justice for all. We have had "freedom and justice," and that is why we have been almost exterminated. We shall not forget this."



From Chief Joseph (external - login to view), Nez Perces'


"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace.....Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.......Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."


Chief Maquinna, Nootka


"Once I was in Victoria, and I saw a very large house. They told me it was a bank and that the white men place their money there to be taken care of, and that by and by they got it back with interest. "We are Indians and we have no such bank; but when we have plenty of money or blankets, we give them away to other chiefs and people, and by and by they return them with interest, and our hearts feel good. Our way of giving is our bank."

 
Niflmir
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Just want to point out one little thing to those that think that if First Nations reserves are turned into municipalities or given complete autonomy and the rights to private ownership, that that will be the end of payments from Canada to the First Nations should think again. The payments are for land given by the First Nations to Canada and her predecessors. The only way to stop those payments is to negotiate a "buy out" with the individual First Nations tribes.

Or so dilute the gene pool that there are no longer any First Nations. One can see "privatization" as a form of that.

I really like the idea of autonomous first nations. Mostly because I like seeing anyone stick it to the government. I wish they would do more things like the casinos though. Why haven't they been able to make offshore tax havens, legalized drugs, and less gun control? I'd also like to see them have their own passports.

That'd be amazing. I'd be applying for citizenship at the nearest reservation in that case. The truth seems to be that parliament says they are a nation then sends in our police. Isn't that an act of war?

Sorry if that's off topic.
 
taxslave
#55
I am in favor of turning reserves into something approximating municipalities and the individual may own the land their house sits on. Now wether the funding comes from locally raised taxes or comes from the federal government is immaterial as long as it is spent wisely and openly accounted for. Without doing a whole lot of research that I don't have time for and Bear may know the answer to but there may be a huge difference between the east where most bands are covered by treaty rights that were made many years ago and the west where there are not many treaties. One of the problems with private ownership of reserve lands that has been alluded to is non band members buying homes on the rez. I'm sure there could be a legal way of preventing this but I wouldn't know how to word it. Something like Co Ops perhaps? In any event the control over development must be made closer to home and not in Ottawa.
 
Niflmir
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I am in favor of turning reserves into something approximating municipalities and the individual may own the land their house sits on. Now wether the funding comes from locally raised taxes or comes from the federal government is immaterial as long as it is spent wisely and openly accounted for. Without doing a whole lot of research that I don't have time for and Bear may know the answer to but there may be a huge difference between the east where most bands are covered by treaty rights that were made many years ago and the west where there are not many treaties. One of the problems with private ownership of reserve lands that has been alluded to is non band members buying homes on the rez. I'm sure there could be a legal way of preventing this but I wouldn't know how to word it. Something like Co Ops perhaps? In any event the control over development must be made closer to home and not in Ottawa.

But these are lands that are ostensibly owned by an internal nation. Many people own land in countries that they are not citizens of, and there is no problem for the nation. The problem comes for the private landowner when the nation decides to take the land for eminent domain purposes or otherwise. I say ostensibly, because it really looks to me like people continue to consider reserves to be Canadian lands and not lands owned by an internal nation, one of the First Nations.
 
Cannuck
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

The truth seems to be that parliament says they are a nation then sends in our police. Isn't that an act of war?

That's because they aren't really considered "nations". It's just a PC term to appease some people. I believe that, if the government wants to treat them like nations, they should treat them like nations and on the flip side these nations should act like nations. I don't see much political will on either side to make that a reality though.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

One of the problems with private ownership of reserve lands that has been alluded to is non band members buying homes on the rez. I'm sure there could be a legal way of preventing this but I wouldn't know how to word it.

Why would you want to prevent an aboriginal from selling his property to whomever he/she chooses? Would you like the government to do the same to you?
 
Niflmir
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's because they aren't really considered "nations". It's just a PC term to appease some people. I believe that, if the government wants to treat them like nations, they should treat them like nations and on the flip side these nations should act like nations. I don't see much political will on either side to make that a reality though.

But they are treated like a sovereign nations for the purposes of casinos and taxes... so it seems they can win some political battles. I'd like to see them truly sovereign.
 
Cannuck
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

I'd like to see them truly sovereign.

I have no problem with that but in order for it to happen, first nations need to want it. I've seen no evidence that they do. I'd be truly surprised if more than 2 or 3 percent of aboriginals would want to give up their Canadian citizenship.
 
taxslave
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's because they aren't really considered "nations". It's just a PC term to appease some people. I believe that, if the government wants to treat them like nations, they should treat them like nations and on the flip side these nations should act like nations. I don't see much political will on either side to make that a reality though.



Why would you want to prevent an aboriginal from selling his property to whomever he/she chooses? Would you like the government to do the same to you?

I personally don't care but I know that many natives do because the question has come up before. Co-ops- strata can and do dictate who you can sell your holdings to. Governments have prevented the sale of companies, so it does happen.
 

Similar Threads

29
190
Nationalize Canadian oil reserves!!!!
by Socrates the Greek | Jul 5th, 2008
2
Oil Shale Reserves
by I think not | May 8th, 2006
0
Privatizing the Apocalypse
by darkbeaver | Apr 3rd, 2006
no new posts