CanPol: *****-umen Showdown

[C0ckney]

And if they don't vote to go, how will it be resolved?

I'm pretty sure the people of Ontario would not accept the beginning of such a system, let alone wait for 'them' to vote to leave to end it.

i would imagine that it will be resolved as a part of a package of measures which would follow the scottish voting no (which i think is the most likely outcome). the best solution would be one where scottish MPs are not be allowed to vote on english matters, that would be dealt with by the scottish parliament if it were in scotland.

[Wezil]

Aeson -

The communal land issue is more important than that. I am not familiar with the US reserve system so I will speak to the Canadian case (although they sound similar).

The inability to own the land you live on (individually) is a damper on investment as natives can't use their landholdings as collateral for a loan. You or I could mortgage our property for a small business startup loan - natives cannot.

[Asher]

Didn't Harper just introduce a motion to permit private ownership on reserves?

[Wezil]

I did see something about that in passing but I'm not sure on the details. The NP carried the article.

[Wezil]

Here it is:

With Ottawa signalling it plans to table a new law allowing first nations to sell reserve land – to members and outsiders alike – it marks the end of a campaign years in the making. Critics warn it will only alienate many first nations groups while serving no real purpose, arguing adequate land ownership laws already exist.

The debate centres on whether first nations need full land ownership, known as fee simple, to trigger housing and economic development on more than 600 reserves. In doing so, they risk giving up control of parcels of reserve land.

What’s the status quo?

The housing challenges facing Canada’s first nations are overwhelming: a lack of supply, pressing needs for repairs and heavy overcrowding in some cases.

Part of the problem, according to advocates of the Conservatives’ First Nations Property Ownership initiative, is that first nations people don’t “own” their plot of reserve land, and therefore they can’t, for instance, easily take out a mortgage. Instead, it’s up to band councils to build houses and green-light repairs, many of which must be approved by the federal government – a process critics say has become woefully bogged down in red tape.

“The only way to alleviate that is to have first nations be able to be empowered,” says Manny Jules, chief commissioner of the First Nations Tax Commission and a former chief of the Tk’emlúps first nation in Kamloops, B.C.

Many first nations have turned to other systems of land title, short of full ownership, that allow people living on reserves to take out a mortgage and claim tenure over a certain plot of land – all while preserving the spirit of communal ownership and without opening the door to non-natives buying up land.

“What I think needs to be put out there is: let’s not use up valuable time, resources and energy on creating something that already exists,” says Jody Wilson-Raybould, regional chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

What would the law change?

The law would allow – not force – an individual first nation to opt in and hold the legal “fee simple” title to all or part of its reserve land. It could therefore serve as collateral for development or, for instance, prevent a band council from unilaterally moving a family. “The purpose is to free the dead capital that’s here in our communities, and communities can restrict it as well,” Mr. Jules says.

But it would make any “fee simple” land available to outsiders or developers. Allowing non-natives to own land would “erode our collective rights in our reserved lands,” according to a 2010 resolution from the Assembly of First Nations, and “impose the colonizer’s model on our Peoples.”

Where has it been done before?

Several communities have some form of property ownership. The Nisga’a First Nation in British Columbia opened the door to fee simple ownership of residential land three years ago, after signing a treaty in 2000. It’s seen as a foray into first nations land ownership, but the Nisga’a stress they’re a different case than the law Ottawa is drafting, in that the band – not the Crown – owned the land after the treaty was signed.

The Nisga’a land project hasn’t yet been implemented, but Mr. Jules’s initiative, if brought into law, would essentially extend that option across the country. But other first nations have adopted a series of measures, such as long-term leases, that already deliver the benefits of land ownership to reserves without forfeiting control over the land.

Why support it?

Mr. Jules says the argument is simple: the current system is broken beyond repair. A lack of land title ripples throughout the first nations economy.

“It really hinges ultimately on our freedom, and it’s an important step toward getting rid of the Indian Act,” he said.

Why oppose it?

The notion could prove explosive with some first nations communities, as the AFN considers property ownership “a concept that is in direct contradiction to first nation sacred responsibilities and distinct relationship to our territories.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-plan-to-allow-private-property-on-reserves-reignites-debate/article4466019/

Senator Ibbitson also has a column in the Globe.

The Conservative government will move slowly on the question of property rights on native reserves, but it will move.

The Harper government will consult with native leaders before introducing the legislation. Manny Jules, who heads the First Nations Tax Commission, has drawn up a template for legislation, but the word in Ottawa is that a bill is not expected to arrive until 2013. Although reserve lands are under federal jurisdiction, provinces are responsible for property rights off reserve, and may be asked to pass mirror legislation. It is, in a word, complicated.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister John Duncan are resolved to bring in a native property rights bill, along with legislation to reform the education system on reserves.

Their motives are practical: Employers in resource industries are complaining of worsening job shortages. First nations workers could help fill that gap. But to qualify, they need a high school education, at least, and the social stability that land ownership can help provide.

Beyond that, natives who own their own property can be taxed by native governments, providing revenues for roads, water systems and the like. Native land owners can build equity, make improvements, profit from a sale – all of the things that make owning property attractive to non-natives.

And businesses that want to unlock the economic potential of reserves, from real estate development to forestry and mining, need the legal certainty that a property regime makes possible.

More than two-thirds of Canadian households own their own home. The Conservatives aim to make it a habit among first nations as well.

Currently there are a patchwork of rules regarding property on reserves, varying from reserve to reserve and province to province. I am drawing, here, from a consultant’s report prepared by Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary's political scientist and former adviser to Mr. Harper who has long advocated on-reserve property rights.

On many reserves, customary usage, as it’s called, allows families to occupy pieces of land for years or even generations, though they have no legal claim to the land.

Certificates of possession confer stronger title to a piece of land, but the certificate must be approved by the aboriginal affairs minister, and the title can only be transferred to another band member.

Finally lands can be leased to outsiders. But leases are cumbersome to apply for and difficult to obtain. The economic consulting firm Fiscal Realities estimates that obtaining a legal right to use reserve property is four times as expensive as obtaining the same right off reserve.

“Ironically, although first nations are at the bottom of socio-economic rankings, they are potentially wealthy landlords,” Mr. Flanagan observed in the report. But first the potential of that land must be unlocked.

First nations leaders have two objections to property rights. The first is that native land is traditionally communally owned. Private property is yet another assimilationist Western concept being imposed on native culture.

The second is that once reserve members own their land, they can sell it to non-natives, eroding the land base.

As David McLaren, who writes on native issues, observed Tuesday, the Dawes Act in the United States conferred similar rights on reserves, leading in some cases to a critical loss of control by natives over their territories.

“I can see how this won’t end well for natives,” he said yesterday in an e-mail.

But the legislation will be strictly voluntary. Only those first nations that want to embrace the concept of private property will do so. Mr. Jules estimates that only 11 of more than 600 first nations are currently interested.

“Every time there is a discussion about amending the Indian Act, the Indians are opposed to it,” he said in an interview. Very often, though, once the legislation is in place opinions change.

There is a Nixon-in-China quality to the wave of legislation that the Harper government has implemented or is proposing to reform relations between first nations and the Crown. Much of it has faced opposition from both natives and non-natives. Much of what is to come will be even more strongly opposed.

But one is tempted to ask: Do the opponents oppose because they think things are going so well?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/do-opponents-of-native-property-rights-think-things-are-okay-now/article4468909/

[Wezil]

After checking my cigarette supply I see it is time for me to make a drive out to the reserve. I'll do my best to stimulate their economy.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wezil, the exact same problem exists on US reservations.

Also, the government provides enough to live on but they can't use any of the money to try to leave. According to my friend, many would like to but simply cannot. Some feel a connection to the land, most are simply poor and severely uneducated. Tribal governments tend to be very corrupt and poorly managed, as well. This is not prejudice, this is fact.

By the way, Aeson, you can go **** yourself. I don't think my friend had no understanding of native american culture.

[Wezil]

They raised the price on my smokes.

[Aeson]

Aeson -

The communal land issue is more important than that. I am not familiar with the US reserve system so I will speak to the Canadian case (although they sound similar).

The inability to own the land you live on (individually) is a damper on investment as natives can't use their landholdings as collateral for a loan. You or I could mortgage our property for a small business startup loan - natives cannot.

HC's claim, and my refutation, were dealing with incentive to take care of the land. Inability to improve the land was not a point in question (and was implicitly acknowledged already).

[Aeson]

Also, the government provides enough to live on but they can't use any of the money to try to leave. According to my friend, many would like to but simply cannot. Some feel a connection to the land, most are simply poor and severely uneducated. Tribal governments tend to be very corrupt and poorly managed, as well.

It's good you have finally acknowledged (if underplayed) my point that a connection to the land is a reason why people would choose to live on reservations. Cultural identity, tradition, community, and various other factors also play their part. Looking at religious/spiritual communities around the world, this is not unexpected to find that they will often put their beliefs ahead of their economic self interest.

Even your point that many would like to leave, but can't, undermines your statement that they hold their government bacon most sacred. Not to mention is in direct contradiction to your claim, "They aren't going to want to give that up."

This is not prejudice, this is fact.

Your prejudice and ignorance is illustrated well enough in statements like:

"... they are giant rent seeking and/or arbitrage operations."
"... the thing they hold most sacred is their government bacon."
"They aren't going to want to give that up."
"no one actually has any incentive to maintain whatever marginal use of the land is possible"

I don't think my friend had no understanding of native american culture.

I have not questioned your friend's understanding. I have pointed out some glaring problems in your's. I'm sure you will claim your position is exactly his, but that is not verifiable. Given your displayed prejudice, ignorance, self bias, and intellectual dishonesty already in this thread, you cannot be considered a valid source of information.

[Fake Boris]

No. He's saying Quebec won't want to pay for the reality. Good-bye state day-care, or hello massive tax increases. Quebec will not have money from Ontario and the rest of Canada to pay the bills any longer.

They also will lose the massive Canadian subsidies to some industries, like aerospace.

This is simply wrong.

[Wezil]

Please explain what you see as "risks" that you mentioned earlier.

[regexcellent]

This is simply wrong.

So you mean Bombardier is going to still get federal bucks when you no longer have a federal government?

[Fake Boris]

So you mean Bombardier is going to still get federal bucks when you no longer have a federal government?

OK, so that's the first point.

Quebec does pay taxes to the federal government. Looks like everyone is implying military occupation + seizing of Quebec's assets or whatever crazy **** like this.

[Hauldren Collider]

Maybe he's hoping that the Quebec government will start footing that bill.