Here is a fairly good opinion piece written in the "Star" no less...:lol:
By: Christopher Alcantara Published on Sun Aug 19 2012
There is a lot of buzz in the media and online about the federal government’s plan to pass legislation that would create private property rights on Canadian Indian reserves.
Unsurprisingly perhaps, much of this buzz has been negative, with commentators expressing fear and doubt about the merits of the proposal.
Much of this apprehension, however, is based on misconceptions about what actually is being proposed.
The following are the top five myths about the proposed First Nations Property Ownership Act:
Myth 1: Indigenous peoples don’t need this legislation. The status quo is fine because doing business on-reserve is the same as doing business off-reserve.
In fact, doing business on-reserve is nothing like doing business off-reserve. The Indian Act imposes significant transaction costs on investors, discouraging them from investing on-reserve. Not only is economic development stymied, so too is the ability of band members to build and own their own homes because the Indian Act prevents band members from using their existing property rights as security for a loan or mortgage.
Myth 2: The legislation will result in each reserve being allotted entirely to individual members.
Although this is possible, the legislation will actually give each First Nation the opportunity to decide how much and which of its lands it will transform into individual private ownership. Most bands will probably be cautious at first and will allot only 5 to 10 per cent of their land to so-called “fee-simple” ownership, the type of property right that most Canadians currently enjoy when they buy property off-reserve. This probably is a good strategy given that the policy reform is new and untested.
Myth 3: First Nations already own their reserve land and so we don’t need this legislation.
In fact, title to reserve land is vested in the Crown. Ideally, the proposed legislation would transfer underlying title to the First Nations but the reality is that such a transfer is impossible because it requires a constitutional amendment. Instead, the legislation will accomplish the next best thing. It will transfer three important powers related to underlying title to each First Nation: jurisdiction (the band will have full authority to manage and administer these lands); the expropriation power (only the band, and not the Crown, will be able to expropriate reserve lands); and the reversionary power (individual fee-simple lands will revert to the band should a death without a will occur).
Myth 4: With an entire reserve allotted to private owners, band members could sell their lands to non-band members, thus threatening the integrity of the reserve.
The proposed legislation will indeed allow band members to sell their interests to non-band members and non-aboriginals, but this ability is a key strength of the proposal. Private ownership reduces transaction costs and increases the potential for economic activity on reserve lands. As well, armed with the necessary jurisdiction, the expropriation power, and the reversionary power, First Nations communities will always own their reserve land as a collective, no matter who owns the individual interests. When an American buys property in Canada, that piece of real estate does not become part of the United States. Instead, it remains a part of Canada, subject to all of its laws, customs and practices.
Myth 5: Not only is this proposal another example of top-down policy reform, the spirit of the reform offends aboriginal traditions of ownership.
But throughout their history indigenous peoples have had a diverse set of individual property rights. Many of these rights, however, were taken away by the Crown without their consent. This legislation is about restoring those rights, at least to those groups that decide voluntarily to opt into the legislation. As well, the idea for this legislation came from the indigenous community, rather than the Crown or academics. Specifically, the idea was the brainchild of
Chief Manny Jules, who in turn borrowed it from the
Nisga’a in northern British Columbia.
This legislation is not a panacea that will cure indigenous poverty. As well, First Nations that don’t want to go down this road have access to a number of excellent alternatives, such as the
First Nations Land Management Act. Still, it’s a policy reform that is long overdue and has the potential to radically transform reserves across Canada in a positive way. Canadians need to respect the sovereign rights of indigenous peoples by not interfering with the decision of those First Nations who want these rights restored.
Private property on reserves: 5 myths | Toronto Star
Dean Skoreyko @bcbluecon 
Chris Chapman @crchapman 
guycarisse @guycarisse 
Mike Hansen @MikeHansen613 
Jo BlueLikeYou @JoanneBLY 
