First Nations will balk at Harper's private property plans, Atleo warns

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
First Nations will balk at Harper's private property plans, Atleo warns

Category: NEWS
Created on Monday, 02 April 2012 12:16
Last Updated on Wednesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
Published Date

Heather Scoffield,


TTAWA - Ottawa should expect stiff resistance to its plan to allow private property ownership on First Nations reserves, says National Chief Shawn Atleo.

"First Nations, by and large, do not support private property," the leader of the Assembly of First Nations said in an interview Friday.
This week's budget included a formal announcement that Ottawa will explore legislation to introduce private-property provisions for First Nations who are open to the idea.

Many Conservatives feel private property rights would give impoverished reserves a better chance at developing prosperous businesses.

They've been encouraged by Manny Jules, who heads the federal First Nations Commission, and a small group of about 10 First Nations which support him. The idea was also promoted in a recent Commons finance committee report.

With federal legislation, "First Nations will assume responsibility and authority over their lands just as any other government," Jules said at a recent committee hearing. "The end result will be the lower cost of doing business, improved reporting requirements and less bureaucracy."

But Atleo said that before the government moves to legislation, it should let an ongoing economic development task force examine all possibilities.

While most First Nations adamantly oppose private ownership, they have other creative solutions for land use and development that would respect and preserve treaty rights, but are not based on "externally imposed notions," he added.

First Nations chiefs have passed several resolutions against private property ownership, arguing that such legislation would threaten First Nations control of the land. They say privatization could lead to the sale of land out of First Nations hands, violating a sacred responsibility to future generations.

Still, Atleo offered a cautious endorsement of the budget's measures for First Nations overall.

The document contained $275 million in funding for education, as well as renewal of a $331-million two-year fund for clean water.
"It isn't all that was hoped for, but I feel it provides room for hope," he said.

The AFN and the federal government created a national panel on education, which recently recommended an urgent overhaul of the way First Nations schooling is funded and organized.

The budget committed the government to passing legislation and setting up a new education system by September 2014. The funding is meant to help some of the most troubled reserves prepare to join that system.

Atleo said the budget money is only a first step, and he is anxious to clarify what the next steps are.

"There's a sense here that we have momentum to build on."

But many regional organizations and First Nations leaders are pushing for far more. They point to a recent unanimous resolution in the House of Commons which supported the idea of bringing First Nations schools up to par with their provincial counterparts.

"It's only good news for anyone who believes children should be getting less because of their race," said First Nations child advocate Cindy Blackstock.

Her research shows First Nations students each receive between $2,000 and $3,000 less than other children in education funding every year and the budget's $275 million — to be spent on building, renovating, early literacy and other supports — barely makes a dent.

"When does it end? I think that's the question we all need to ask the prime minister. When is it over?"
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
I must be missing something. I would have thought the majority would be in favor of owning the lot their house sits on. Think pride of ownership.
Or are we hearing from the leaders, not the band members?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I must be missing something. I would have thought the majority would be in favor of owning the lot their house sits on. Think pride of ownership.
Since the house is usually owned by the Band member, while the land isn't.

What exactly does owning sod and dirt do for pride?

I like my lawn and everything, but my house is my castle.

Or are we hearing from the leaders, not the band members?
That is a distinct possibility.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Since the house is usually owned by the Band member, while the land isn't.
What exactly does owning sod and dirt do for pride?
I like my lawn and everything, but my house is my castle.
That is a distinct possibility.
I'm not really sure if it does matter. It would to me off rez because you could be put in the position of having to move your house. No idea how this may apply on rez. The other thing being on a rez that is fairly large and has arable land a farmer might want to own the land he tends.
On the surface it just looks like those in control want to remain that way. Have to remember to ask my DiL what the general feeling is on her rez.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Since the house is usually owned by the Band member, while the land isn't.
What exactly does owning sod and dirt do for pride?
I like my lawn and everything, but my house is my castle.
That is a distinct possibility.
You also own the land. I think that there are differing solutions. While one may work in one band it will not in another. the Govt has to have the brains and the flexibility to understand this. One size does not fit all. That is why we are in the mess we are in.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
I can see private property on reserves would eventually tear the reserves apart as lots get sold off to non aboriginals. That would give Dumpy a woody but not traditionals who don't believe in owning a piece of their Mother. There has to be another way and I think it should be up to each reserve to figure that out for themselves, not have it imposed by the feds. I think if people want to own land, they can leave the reserve.

I don't believe in owning land, I think all land in Canada should be held in common trust and everybody should have the right to build their own home wherever they want. Owning land is an unrealestate scam anyway, because if the feds or provincial government deem it necessary to confiscate your property, they will just expropriate it. You only own surface rights. If oil, gold, uranium, etc are found under you, you can't stop it from being extracted.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,738
12,951
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm bound to a similar agreement. I get to farm for hopefully the next 35 years but the land can never leave the family. I owe my existance to that piece of land and so will all the generations that fallow. It was virgin land that spawned a huge family. A rez is just a great big extended family too.

 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
I'm not really sure if it does matter. It would to me off rez because you could be put in the position of having to move your house.
That can happen in any case, because of expropriation. On res, at the end of 100 year leases, to the non Ban member, if your lease isn't renewed, you'll have to take compensation, or move your house as well.

On the surface it just looks like those in control want to remain that way.
That's a common problem.

Have to remember to ask my DiL what the general feeling is on her rez.
I'd love to know what she says. I know many here have no issues with the way it is now. Those that can afford to build a home on their parcel, do. Those that can't, live in Band provided townhouses, or tract homes, on Band held land. But most still have a parcel that is theirs. They just can't sell it, to any one but the Band.

You also own the land.
I realize that, but besides the space I hold property rights to, the land holds less monetary value than my house.

I think that there are differing solutions.While one may work in one band it will not in another. the Govt has to have the brains and the flexibility to understand this. One size does not fit all. That is why we are in the mess we are in.
Agreed.

The chief says Indians are against private property, show us a poll that states people are against having money.
LMAO! You and Jimmy use fallacies so often, neither of you even know that you do it anymore.

There are over 600 reserves, some will be for it, the numbers say so.
Can you provide the numbers?
 

oleoleolanda

Nominee Member
Dec 15, 2011
96
0
6
Oakville
It's a complex issue. First Nations believe it is their duty to consider the next seven generations when making decisions about the land, so Harper government's should be making a case for how private property will help tomorrow's generations if he wants to convince those who are against it. At the same time, I think there's probably as Bear asked a disconnect between the leaders and the people. What's in the interest of band leaders, the corporation that is the band, versus the individual people can be at odds. There's been a growing entrepreneurship among Canadian aboriginals and a drive towards independence and self sufficiency. Ultimately, that drive is strongest when the individual has freedom, independence and choice, which the band leaders against privatization of the land, seem to be against. In some cases, I think it's due to a belief that a paternalistic (or maternalistic) type of social order cares best for the collective. In others I think it's due to good old fashioned greed and power. I personally think there is greater hope for Canadian aboriginal peoples through individual freedom and choice, combined with the cultural values that include a respect for the land, caring for the collective, the next generations, etc.
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Since the house is usually owned by the Band member, while the land isn't.

What exactly does owning sod and dirt do for pride?

I like my lawn and everything, but my house is my castle.

That is a distinct possibility.



Right on Bear, BUT::: If you don't own the land, the owner can sell it, and you gotta move your house. A few thousand trailer park folks have found this to be true over the years.

While realizing owned land can be expropriated, it doesn't happen all that often. It's a bitch when it does even if the "owner" is properly compensated.

Personally, I'm thinking of paving my freakin lawn. Son of a bitch keeps growin crabgrass and them dandy-lion things.

Gonna stick with my private property for now. Probably be buried in it someday............avoid all that onerous cost, funeral home vultures and the like.

Happy Easter.
 

oleoleolanda

Nominee Member
Dec 15, 2011
96
0
6
Oakville
It was actually a First Nation person who first told me that the law needed to be changed so that the people could build equity, businesses, borrow, etc. Our homes are actually not worth much. The real value is in the land. By not being able to own land, First Nations individuals on reserves are not able to build up the equity to borrow against. That leaves them dependent on the government and the band. Self sufficiency vs. dependence isn't just about a peoples, a nation. It's about the individuals within that nation as well.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
It was actually a First Nation person who first told me that the law needed to be changed so that the people could build equity, businesses, borrow, etc. Our homes are actually not worth much. The real value is in the land. By not being able to own land, First Nations individuals on reserves are not able to build up the equity to borrow against. That leaves them dependent on the government and the band. Self sufficiency vs. dependence isn't just about a peoples, a nation. It's about the individuals within that nation as well.

Won't work. The banks will not lend money against property on a reserve.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
The reserve system works quite well, but as was said one size does not fit all.
At the same time I don't think the reserves should become free simple land.
As for those who are or might be complaining about not having a place to put their
house on when the lease is up, don't they read the agreement before signing it?
Everyone is informed of the rules prior to buying into the idea of living on the lands
that is reserve lands. If they don't read all the print including the fine print, its
should be their problem not the fault of the natives or their agents.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Since the house is usually owned by the Band member, while the land isn't.
What exactly does owning sod and dirt do for pride?
I like my lawn and everything, but my house is my castle.
That is a distinct possibility.
oooops. I meant to give you a thumbs up and missed. Sorry bout that.

Having a chunk of land doesn't mean much to us as far as pride and crap goes. That we have put work into it to support us is the thing. Especially since we did so with as little impact as possible on the rest of the flora and fauna. Still working on it, too.
House is cool, but it needs to be repainted inside.

Kind of dumb to think we can actually own land. We view it as renting off the gov't (Canadian public).

It was actually a First Nation person who first told me that the law needed to be changed so that the people could build equity, businesses, borrow, etc. Our homes are actually not worth much. The real value is in the land. By not being able to own land, First Nations individuals on reserves are not able to build up the equity to borrow against. That leaves them dependent on the government and the band. Self sufficiency vs. dependence isn't just about a peoples, a nation. It's about the individuals within that nation as well.
Well, in my wife's bunch, everyone is an individual but there's an immense amount of cooperation amongst them and neighboring clans. The entire society is based upon the idea that a group can thrive much easier than a collection of individuals. It's quite egalitarian and social. I see this in many other nations as well and my favorite example from where I was raised is the Oliver/Osoyoos society.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
It was actually a First Nation person who first told me that the law needed to be changed so that the people could build equity, businesses, borrow, etc. Our homes are actually not worth much. The real value is in the land. By not being able to own land, First Nations individuals on reserves are not able to build up the equity to borrow against. That leaves them dependent on the government and the band. Self sufficiency vs. dependence isn't just about a peoples, a nation. It's about the individuals within that nation as well.

If you live in Vancouver, you want to own some land, however you can get it. So you might get a greater desire for individualism close to urban areas than in rural areas. Own a plot of land in Vancouver and you can be a millionaire. Although you could be land rich and cash poor.