Even "fee simple" isn't much of a title. Anyone "owning" land is required to pay property taxes to the province. If the property owner doesn't pay the property taxes, the province will evict them with the coercive force of government and "sell" the property to settle the outstanding debt.
To me, that sounds more like a landlord/tenant arrangement with the government being the owner.
We have painfully learned during covid that the Charter could not protect our rights. I was a PhD student at Université de Moncton, and I became truly upset when the professor started her sermon about how linguistic rights were important while I was losing my online teaching job because I refused to show a proof of vaccination. We painfully realized that the government could do anything they want.
The Wolastoqey tribe seems to be powerful in NB. They succeed, as far as I know, in the marijuana business, and they provide an alternative to the government monopole. They seem well organized.
I worked myself with the Indigenous on a remote and poor reserve. Poor materially and intellectually. This is the type of community the gov like to give symbolic power. The Wolastoqey does not seem to fit in that category.
Gross modo, we know now that we are absolutely powerless. Laws are created non-stop, but never repealed.
Anyway, when you are forbidden to grew a garden on your front yard… you definetely don’t own your house.
Since our constitution does not protect us, it may be that the only way out of this predicament is to become the 51st state. The U.S. constitution will grant us protections that we have no hope of ever obtaining as Canadians.
Thanks for writing this. I assumed it would be about 'land acknowledgements' and the social poison they are, and I guess it related in a way, but this is a genuine problem you have identified.
Thank you for writing about this. I think in the next 10 years this is issue is going to start taking more and more prominence and First Nations will need to reckon whether they are going to start wars with their neighbours or not. Under federal or provincial UNDRIP they could start going after private property any time they like, demand public land, and halt resource extraction. Not sure how many have realized yet how much their just biting themselves in the a**.
Aboriginal land is not private property either, though, is it? All the cases you mention involve groups, not individuals.
Correct me if I'm wrong but no one owns private property on a reserve, it's all owned jointly by the band, if indeed it's owned at all, except by the government.
That's a good point. I work with First Nations a bit and my understanding for reserve land is that it's held in trust for the Band by the federal government. Individual members can have a certificate of possession for a house or property, but it can't be sold to non-members. For aboriginal title, this is also indivisible I understand. The issue is, I believe (Pardy can correct me), that Bands seeking title or a specific property due to traditional use can use that rationale to exclude other owners, and potentially demand that private owners be expelled (there would be some form of compensation I assume). Once they have title (like the Tsilh'qotin for example), they can control what happens within the territory in terms of access and hunting, resource extraction, and I would assume any new subdivision of private land.
That's what I understand, that individual members can't buy or sell land or property or houses, but they can be granted a certificate of possession which allows them to live on a plot. This cannot be sold or traded or passed on in any way. The band can only deal with the govt, and the only way to sell or trade property is with the govt.
I think non band members can lease land from. band, as individuals. Not sure how this works exactly.
I'd be interested to find out whether the Tsilh'qotin can subdivide and whether individual members can own, buy, sell, etc. after gaining "title".
So if a fee simple home 'owner' changed who they paid property tax to from the government of Canada to the indigenous peoples that hold the land rights - would this not be a matter between the First Nations and the 'settlor 'on their lands?
I'd gather that if one was located on lands the First Nations wanted for any reason to have back, relocating would likely be a consideration as I'm certain there would be negotiations in the manner to which they honor in natural law?
Or do you see this as a point of contention and retaliation from the long ago settlors actions during earliest days of 'discovery'?
Oh wow, I had no idea, thank you Bruce. Is that why Quebec deems building out the Energy East pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick "socially unacceptable" essentially blocking their access to much needed affordable energy? Is that the reason?
No, Quebec flooded vast tracts of Northern Cree land to generate electricity. They don't care about aboriginal title.
The reason the pipeline is "socially unacceptable" in Quebec is because Quebecers are too morally superior to have anything to do with Alberta's "dirty oil" - except to take the wealth created from it in the form of $14billion in equalization payments every year.
Canada has the most clueless judiciary in the world, bar none. Our Court Crusaders will be the death of us.
Even "fee simple" isn't much of a title. Anyone "owning" land is required to pay property taxes to the province. If the property owner doesn't pay the property taxes, the province will evict them with the coercive force of government and "sell" the property to settle the outstanding debt.
To me, that sounds more like a landlord/tenant arrangement with the government being the owner.
We have painfully learned during covid that the Charter could not protect our rights. I was a PhD student at Université de Moncton, and I became truly upset when the professor started her sermon about how linguistic rights were important while I was losing my online teaching job because I refused to show a proof of vaccination. We painfully realized that the government could do anything they want.
The Wolastoqey tribe seems to be powerful in NB. They succeed, as far as I know, in the marijuana business, and they provide an alternative to the government monopole. They seem well organized.
I worked myself with the Indigenous on a remote and poor reserve. Poor materially and intellectually. This is the type of community the gov like to give symbolic power. The Wolastoqey does not seem to fit in that category.
Gross modo, we know now that we are absolutely powerless. Laws are created non-stop, but never repealed.
Anyway, when you are forbidden to grew a garden on your front yard… you definetely don’t own your house.
*to grow
Since our constitution does not protect us, it may be that the only way out of this predicament is to become the 51st state. The U.S. constitution will grant us protections that we have no hope of ever obtaining as Canadians.
Well I wasn’t feeling the 51st state vibe but I am now.
Thanks for writing this. I assumed it would be about 'land acknowledgements' and the social poison they are, and I guess it related in a way, but this is a genuine problem you have identified.
I highly recommend ALL CASH COWS get your deeds out, your mortgage papers, and start reviewing the fine print. You are not going to like what you see.
Thank you for writing about this. I think in the next 10 years this is issue is going to start taking more and more prominence and First Nations will need to reckon whether they are going to start wars with their neighbours or not. Under federal or provincial UNDRIP they could start going after private property any time they like, demand public land, and halt resource extraction. Not sure how many have realized yet how much their just biting themselves in the a**.
Aboriginal land is not private property either, though, is it? All the cases you mention involve groups, not individuals.
Correct me if I'm wrong but no one owns private property on a reserve, it's all owned jointly by the band, if indeed it's owned at all, except by the government.
That's a good point. I work with First Nations a bit and my understanding for reserve land is that it's held in trust for the Band by the federal government. Individual members can have a certificate of possession for a house or property, but it can't be sold to non-members. For aboriginal title, this is also indivisible I understand. The issue is, I believe (Pardy can correct me), that Bands seeking title or a specific property due to traditional use can use that rationale to exclude other owners, and potentially demand that private owners be expelled (there would be some form of compensation I assume). Once they have title (like the Tsilh'qotin for example), they can control what happens within the territory in terms of access and hunting, resource extraction, and I would assume any new subdivision of private land.
Suddenly the WEF’s “you will own nothing…” hits a little deeper
That's what I understand, that individual members can't buy or sell land or property or houses, but they can be granted a certificate of possession which allows them to live on a plot. This cannot be sold or traded or passed on in any way. The band can only deal with the govt, and the only way to sell or trade property is with the govt.
I think non band members can lease land from. band, as individuals. Not sure how this works exactly.
I'd be interested to find out whether the Tsilh'qotin can subdivide and whether individual members can own, buy, sell, etc. after gaining "title".
So if a fee simple home 'owner' changed who they paid property tax to from the government of Canada to the indigenous peoples that hold the land rights - would this not be a matter between the First Nations and the 'settlor 'on their lands?
I'd gather that if one was located on lands the First Nations wanted for any reason to have back, relocating would likely be a consideration as I'm certain there would be negotiations in the manner to which they honor in natural law?
Or do you see this as a point of contention and retaliation from the long ago settlors actions during earliest days of 'discovery'?
Oh wow, I had no idea, thank you Bruce. Is that why Quebec deems building out the Energy East pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick "socially unacceptable" essentially blocking their access to much needed affordable energy? Is that the reason?
No, Quebec flooded vast tracts of Northern Cree land to generate electricity. They don't care about aboriginal title.
The reason the pipeline is "socially unacceptable" in Quebec is because Quebecers are too morally superior to have anything to do with Alberta's "dirty oil" - except to take the wealth created from it in the form of $14billion in equalization payments every year.
Yes, the entire equalization program needs to be killed immediately and Quebec should exploit the natural gas sitting under their feet.
I thought the US received all those oil benefits? Interesting interview by Canada Files on this here: https://youtu.be/K_Zp6UiEeVQ?si=jcVC5-KDVqYax5mY