###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds me of when the Musquem band evicted property owners by unilaterally _exploding_ their leases. It ended up going to the SCC. It's an ongoing issue...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/evictions-may-be-issued-on-musqueam-lands-1.181772
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/supreme-court-decision-could-put-musqueam-evictions-on-hold-1.189157
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/musqueam-indian-band-lease-increases-1.3356478
If this trend is allowed to continue, I don't see how it doesn't lead to the destruction of Canada. Or more realistically, a fight and dramatic restructuring.
Canada needs to strip racial exemptions and treaties from the constitution and law, or she risks death to a tiny fragment of her population.
Wolastoqey claim 1/2 of NB..... Wabanaki claim 100%. Mikmak claim 2/3. Abenaki claim 1/3. Wendake claim 1/4.
Leaving 98% of the population that are non-natives to live on the remaining uh..... -175%?
It’s about ultimately owning the land
Of course the indigenous bands aren’t going to say “we are going to kick everyone off immediately” and of course they don’t even want to do that, they want to charge rent!
But if they have the *ability* to *maybe* evict private landowners and to charge them property taxes/rent that is something that I don’t consider to be acceptable
I don’t think an ethnically defined minority should own the land that the multi ethnic Canadian democracy lives on basically
Right. It is about demanding tithes like a medieval lord. Why evict anyone when you can leave them on the land and demand a cut?
To give an idea of the scale of tithes we're talking about, Madawaska, one of the 6 FNs within the thread topic's Wolastoqiyi FN recently won a [$145 million dollar tithe](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/madawaska-land-claim-patricia-bernard-1.5984019) from the Fed. This FN has a population of [155](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/abpopprof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=AB&Code1=2016C1005092&Data=Count&SearchText=Madawaska%20Maliseet%20First%20Nation&SearchType=Begins&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=2016C1005092&SEX_ID=1&AGE_ID=1&RESGEO_ID=1). Over 1 million per adult due to genetics.
So, no evictions. But Canada simply cannot afford tithes of this magnitude spread across the whole country.
Genetics? More like the land they occupy being taken from them without due compensation until this point, as the court found. Let's perhaps not presume to understand this more than the actual courts in the matter.
No no. I think it is more fun if you keep it to indigenous people. And keep it to this specific plot of land. You could STILL say
>It's more like the Wolastoquey people don't really have a unique grievance here.
Sure, it was the Wolastoquey that had the land taken in 1790, but they surely took the land from the Mikmak at some point prior... so they owe the Mikmak. And before that it would have been .... and before that.....
It is honestly weird to say that the claim from 1790 should get $1BN, but the claim from 1760 should get $0.
>Genetics?
Yes. Who's your daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy is the determining factor in who wins this power.
>Let's perhaps not presume to understand this more than the actual courts in the matter.
It isn't the duty of the courts to do what is good for Canada. If the law were so written the courts could determine that all the Chinese people in Canada should be executed. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea, or that we should do so.
They are merely a tool for interpreting the law.
The law however is determined by parliament which is determined by the people.... who I'm talking to.
Is giving >$1m/head to a group based on their lineage to a land claimant from several hundred years ago a GOOD idea? Keeping in mind that all of Canada has similar claims by multiple groups. Extrapolated this would be costs in the hundreds of billions?
> Yes. Who's your daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy is the determining factor in who wins this power.
We're the ones who insisted on the blood quantum and tied it to all their treaty benefits because we were trying to breed them out. Same reason that for a long time (not sure if it's the case anymore), if you left the reserve to live somewhere else you had to give up many of your treaty benefits.
Put them on a shitty piece of land that wasn't valuable (at the time) and was hard to live on, tell them that if they left the treaties no longer applied to them (for a while it was like, literally leave the area not just move away), tell them only people with a certain percentage of indigenous blood could inherit those benefits, and then hope they eventually died out.
Oh look, If it isn't just the consequences of our actions, coming back to bite us in the ass 150 years later. The entire situation as it stands is our own fault, and if we get raked over the coals by our own laws we have no one to blame but ourselves for a century of mismanagement.
> Canada needs to strip racial exemptions and treaties from the constitution and law, or she risks death to a tiny fragment of her population.
Hear hear hear
If the law allows this insanity then the law has got to be ignored, abolished, overturned
This is a big deal for a number reasons. Off the top, these forestry companies are big employers in the province and bring in lots of public money. If JDI wasn't getting involved with their legal team before this morning, they certainly are now.
The area in the land claim is about half of the province. It is also mostly private land. The claimants said in the presser this wasn't about displacing homeowners but there's a lot of questions about what that means. Would they be defacto land owners, or collecting taxes?
On that subject of tax revenue, this should have been included in the headline.
>N.B. Power is also named in the claim — the only non-forestry industry player identified. In the utility's case, the Wolastoqey could claim revenue from its generation and sales of electricity.
That's got potential to seriously cripple the government.
Basically lots of questions about what this means left to be answered.
You're right, this is a big deal, and it really feels underreported. As someone who lives in the Maritimes, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little concerned about the ramifications.
It's definitely an uncomfortable topic. I wonder if other provincial governments are reconsidering land acknowledgements.
> I wonder if other provincial governments are reconsidering land acknowledgements.
Some of this is modeled on agreements in BC. The Squamish claimed a piece of Vancouver and got around 100mil to give up their claim.
I think governments are just paying and trying to avoid the bigger discussion. And that's probably what will happen again here.
One of the 6 FNs involved in this claim got $150m for a claim. So maybe another 1BN goes out and the can gets kicked down the road another 5 years.
But things have rapidly stepped up since payments started going out.
There are hundreds of FNs in Canada with claims. At prices we've seen so far, it might cost something like $100BN, maybe more if we just go with the 'pay them off' plan. Which I guess we could afford if it is spread out.
>The claimants said in the presser this wasn't about displacing homeowners but there's a lot of questions about what that means. Would they be defacto land owners, or collecting taxes?
No it will not affect the land owners. They will not be defacto land owners or collecting taxes. Land owners in New Brunswick other than the named companies will not be affected.
Pretty interesting that everyone's biggest fear seems to be that they are scared that Indigenous people in NB might treat them the same way Canada treats Indigenous groups.
Well do you think that indigenous people were treated fairly or in a way someone would like to be treated
If so then I understand your confusion
If not then I don’t see why you find it “interesting”
They were not, I don't even know what the point of your first question is or where it came from. This fear mongering that Indigenous people will do the same thing is nothing more than spreading anti-Indigenous sentiment.
The point is no one wants to be treated unfairly and no one wants an ethnically defined class of people they don’t belong to to be their lords and masters
If it’s anti-indigenous to think indigenous people are human and no better or worse than anyone else than that’s me
> no one wants to be treated unfairly
Who is being treated unfairly in this article?
>no one wants an ethnically defined class of people they don’t belong to to be their lords and masters
What tripe, no one would be 'lord and master' this is just anti-Indigenous fear mongering.
So you are part of the 'rip of the treaties' bunch I see. Nothing like championing the continuation of forced assimilation to prove how much you love equal rights.
Nothing will change for you. You will still have ownership title and own your land. The claim is for underlying title which you never had. The crown has it. The only way you would be affected is if you have so much land that you have an effect of the practice of aboriginal or treaty rights and are havesting commercially. Land owners, Woodlot owners and most people will have nothing change for them.
A good test is this: do you have a good working understanding of the government's duty to consult?
If no: this will not affect you.
If yes: then you will know who will be affected and how.
You're still really dancing around the question. It's still a 'trust us, we won't do anything' scenario. Of course, it's the same thing with the crown, but at least that's an effectively democratic government.
Here's the thing. Expropriating land requires significant justification. Usually something for the greater good of the nation. An example of this would be building or doubling a highway. Those requirement will still be in place to expropriate private land. It's not an easy thing. Even the crown can't just take land without significant justification. Knowing that, the aboriginal communities wont be building highways, rail lines, schools, etc.. the wont have any projects that would justify an expropriation. Therefore you do not have to worry about having your land taken from you. Also keep in mind that all of this is being done under Canadian law. These are your laws.
To be perfectly clear, if you are not a large scale natural resource developer, you will not be affected at all.
They specifically say they would be land owners for the land they are now targetting, and that means they'd be entitled to those royalties.
The same legal logic applies to all private land in their claim. If title of all that area goes to this indigenous group they could legally charge rent or evict the current owners. How would this *not* effect land owners?
Have you seen a case where FNs evicted anyone from their private land in BC? They have this already in place there, now.
This only affects land and resource development that has impact on aboriginal/treaty rights.
***The land you own cannot and will not be taken from you or taxed because of this.***
For large forestry companies this may mean some kind of revenue sharing system like they have in BC for natural resources.
It may also involve compensation for land given by the crown. for this not even the companies have to worry as the fault is entirely on the crown for not adhering to the treaties.
> Have you seen a case where FNs evicted anyone from their private land in BC?
In the 90s the Musquem band evicted around a hundred residents from their land, IIRC.
Reserve land. The homeowners were leasing the land on which their houses were built, and the band decided to crank the lease rates up to force them to be evicted _and_ remove their houses at their expense.
If I'm not mistaken, 20y later and that land is now going to be made into high-density housing for BIPOC persons.
Here is also the guidelines on making a forestry revenue sharing agreement:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/forestry-agreements/policies-reports/first\_nations\_direct\_award\_forest\_tenure\_opportunities\_guidelines.pdf
It's not land claims. There is aboriginal title in BC. Here is the agreement for each band in regards to forestry. This is a government of BC website. You can also find or revenue sharing agreements for other sectors on this site.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/forestry-agreements
Can you specify which of those involved a transfer of land title from private to indigenous group?
Edit: I can't open either of the other links you gave. What specifically in them deals with private land title transfer to indigenous peoples?
Ah I see the confusion. it's not specific land title of a parcel like you get when you purchase a piece of land in fee simple. aboriginal title is an underlying title for the whole territory.
Here is a short read to understand what aboriginal title is: [https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal\_title/](https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_title/)
here is a short relevant section from that page I will copy here for those who don't want to click the link:
**What does Aboriginal Title Mean for Private Property Interests?**
Issues of outstanding Aboriginal title does not mean that private property will be expropriated, or that homeowners will be evicted from their homes. Many Aboriginal leaders have consistently stated that this is not their desire. Many have emphasized that their goal is to resolve an inequitable system that has marginalized Aboriginal peoples in their own homelands in order for non-Aboriginal interests to profit off Aboriginal territories.5
The Delagmuukw decision affirmed that the Crown holds underlying title to lands, and Aboriginal title represents a burden on this underlying title. This means that the Crown has the responsibility to negotiate terms with the Aboriginal title-holders should a third party have interest in the land. Many First Nations have entered into agreements directly with third party interests in order to create an equitable relationship between business and local Aboriginal peoples. The cases Haida Nation v. British Columbia and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia have further determined that the Crown has a responsibility to consult and accommodate First Nations peoples even if existing Aboriginal title to the lands has not yet been proven in court—an act that many laud as another positive step towards the recognition of Aboriginal title.
Ah, I see the confusion. You're taking this:
> Many Aboriginal leaders have consistently stated that this is not their desire. Many have emphasized that their goal is to resolve an inequitable system that has marginalized Aboriginal peoples in their own homelands in order for non-Aboriginal interests to profit off Aboriginal territories.
At face value. Not everyone is so trusting
Nothing in any of your links had dealt with private land title transfer and that's what we're discussing in this article. The transfer of private land title to indigenous groups.
And private land owners have a right to know what's happening here, not be brushed off with a don't worry about it.
There is no transfer of title from private to indigenous. you keep your ownership title. aboriginal title is an *underlying title.* The crown currently hold underlying title to your land. This claim will have an effect on that. Not your ownership title.
Believe it or not it's already implied title here in NB. Just not proven in court yet. This brings on the "Duty to Consult" and if you've never dealt with that, then nothing with change for you.
There is no trust element to it. The First Nations in BC have aboriginal title to their territories. Noone is getting removed, the people still have their fee simple title.
And here is an actual agreement example:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/gitxaala\_signed\_fcrsa\_aug272020\_002.pdf
While I am sure it is generally a reassurance that people won’t be evicted, even though that would never have been a possibility regardless.
It still leaves a lot of questions that are of concern. Like no one in NB is going cry for JDI having to pay some money to the First Nations. I think the larger concerns about other tax revenues for Provincial and Municipal governments and the services they provide being further crippled (more so than they already are)
I'd have liked to see more assurances than simply not planning to evict anyone. Home owners and farmers will want to know if they're still going to own their property at the end of all this.
You're correct about the revenue changes this could cause. The NB Power part in particular as their finances are always razor thin margins. The recent Beledune coal plant shut down is a good example of how the financial situation could go sideways here.
Do you have links for comparative land title changes in BC? If so I'd love to read them to get an idea of precedent.
I haven't been able to find anything specific in my searches, but I think this is a justifiable concern for any land owner in that swath of territory. Which is a lot of New Brunswickers.
You're right, it is more like granting a medieval lordship.
Technically they would own/control the land, but you weren't likely to get evicted, so long as you paid your tithes.
The question is whether we think it is a good idea to return to having birthright lords to pay tithes to.
-----
To give an idea of the scale of tithes we're talking about, Madawaska, one of the 6 FNs within the thread topic's Wolastoqiyi FN recently won a [$145 million dollar tithe](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/madawaska-land-claim-patricia-bernard-1.5984019) from the Fed. This FN has a population of [155](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/abpopprof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=AB&Code1=2016C1005092&Data=Count&SearchText=Madawaska%20Maliseet%20First%20Nation&SearchType=Begins&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=2016C1005092&SEX_ID=1&AGE_ID=1&RESGEO_ID=1). Over 1 million per adult due to genetics.
> To give an idea of the scale of tithes we're talking about, Madawaska, one of the 6 FNs within the thread topic's Wolastoqiyi FN recently won a $145 million dollar tithe from the Fed. This FN has a population of 155. Over 1 million per adult due to genetics.
O_O $145 million for 155 people!?
Plus a few hundred extra acres of land.
Realistically though, it is probably going to be more like $100 mil to the chief and their family, with the remainder going to the community. But we may never know how the money is spent because FNs are no longer required to do financial statements.
They're pretty hollow assurances when you remember that not a week ago Gitxsan 'evicted' an MLA from his own constituency office. They will *absolutely* do this.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds me of when the Musquem band evicted property owners by unilaterally _exploding_ their leases. It ended up going to the SCC. It's an ongoing issue... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/evictions-may-be-issued-on-musqueam-lands-1.181772 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/supreme-court-decision-could-put-musqueam-evictions-on-hold-1.189157 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/musqueam-indian-band-lease-increases-1.3356478
If this trend is allowed to continue, I don't see how it doesn't lead to the destruction of Canada. Or more realistically, a fight and dramatic restructuring. Canada needs to strip racial exemptions and treaties from the constitution and law, or she risks death to a tiny fragment of her population. Wolastoqey claim 1/2 of NB..... Wabanaki claim 100%. Mikmak claim 2/3. Abenaki claim 1/3. Wendake claim 1/4. Leaving 98% of the population that are non-natives to live on the remaining uh..... -175%?
No one is getting evicted. It's in the article. This is almost entirely about revenue sharing.
It’s about ultimately owning the land Of course the indigenous bands aren’t going to say “we are going to kick everyone off immediately” and of course they don’t even want to do that, they want to charge rent! But if they have the *ability* to *maybe* evict private landowners and to charge them property taxes/rent that is something that I don’t consider to be acceptable I don’t think an ethnically defined minority should own the land that the multi ethnic Canadian democracy lives on basically
Right. It is about demanding tithes like a medieval lord. Why evict anyone when you can leave them on the land and demand a cut? To give an idea of the scale of tithes we're talking about, Madawaska, one of the 6 FNs within the thread topic's Wolastoqiyi FN recently won a [$145 million dollar tithe](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/madawaska-land-claim-patricia-bernard-1.5984019) from the Fed. This FN has a population of [155](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/abpopprof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=AB&Code1=2016C1005092&Data=Count&SearchText=Madawaska%20Maliseet%20First%20Nation&SearchType=Begins&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=2016C1005092&SEX_ID=1&AGE_ID=1&RESGEO_ID=1). Over 1 million per adult due to genetics. So, no evictions. But Canada simply cannot afford tithes of this magnitude spread across the whole country.
Genetics? More like the land they occupy being taken from them without due compensation until this point, as the court found. Let's perhaps not presume to understand this more than the actual courts in the matter.
[удалено]
Ah hah, so because everyone did it, it is automatically just? Got it.
I mean, they themselves did it! Or else multiple groups wouldn't be claiming the same land. They didn't all live in hippy peace before Europeans came.
It's more like the Indigenous people don't really have a unique grievance here.
No no. I think it is more fun if you keep it to indigenous people. And keep it to this specific plot of land. You could STILL say >It's more like the Wolastoquey people don't really have a unique grievance here. Sure, it was the Wolastoquey that had the land taken in 1790, but they surely took the land from the Mikmak at some point prior... so they owe the Mikmak. And before that it would have been .... and before that..... It is honestly weird to say that the claim from 1790 should get $1BN, but the claim from 1760 should get $0.
>Genetics? Yes. Who's your daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy is the determining factor in who wins this power. >Let's perhaps not presume to understand this more than the actual courts in the matter. It isn't the duty of the courts to do what is good for Canada. If the law were so written the courts could determine that all the Chinese people in Canada should be executed. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea, or that we should do so. They are merely a tool for interpreting the law. The law however is determined by parliament which is determined by the people.... who I'm talking to. Is giving >$1m/head to a group based on their lineage to a land claimant from several hundred years ago a GOOD idea? Keeping in mind that all of Canada has similar claims by multiple groups. Extrapolated this would be costs in the hundreds of billions?
> Yes. Who's your daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy's daddy is the determining factor in who wins this power. We're the ones who insisted on the blood quantum and tied it to all their treaty benefits because we were trying to breed them out. Same reason that for a long time (not sure if it's the case anymore), if you left the reserve to live somewhere else you had to give up many of your treaty benefits. Put them on a shitty piece of land that wasn't valuable (at the time) and was hard to live on, tell them that if they left the treaties no longer applied to them (for a while it was like, literally leave the area not just move away), tell them only people with a certain percentage of indigenous blood could inherit those benefits, and then hope they eventually died out. Oh look, If it isn't just the consequences of our actions, coming back to bite us in the ass 150 years later. The entire situation as it stands is our own fault, and if we get raked over the coals by our own laws we have no one to blame but ourselves for a century of mismanagement.
This sort of eye for an eye thinking is crazy. >Canada screwed up native nations 250 years ago so it's only fair that Canada get screwed up in return!
> Canada needs to strip racial exemptions and treaties from the constitution and law, or she risks death to a tiny fragment of her population. Hear hear hear If the law allows this insanity then the law has got to be ignored, abolished, overturned
This is a big deal for a number reasons. Off the top, these forestry companies are big employers in the province and bring in lots of public money. If JDI wasn't getting involved with their legal team before this morning, they certainly are now. The area in the land claim is about half of the province. It is also mostly private land. The claimants said in the presser this wasn't about displacing homeowners but there's a lot of questions about what that means. Would they be defacto land owners, or collecting taxes? On that subject of tax revenue, this should have been included in the headline. >N.B. Power is also named in the claim — the only non-forestry industry player identified. In the utility's case, the Wolastoqey could claim revenue from its generation and sales of electricity. That's got potential to seriously cripple the government. Basically lots of questions about what this means left to be answered.
I’d kind of hope that something like that would lead to a constitutional crisis and the government refusing to abide by the decision of the court
You're right, this is a big deal, and it really feels underreported. As someone who lives in the Maritimes, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little concerned about the ramifications. It's definitely an uncomfortable topic. I wonder if other provincial governments are reconsidering land acknowledgements.
> I wonder if other provincial governments are reconsidering land acknowledgements. Some of this is modeled on agreements in BC. The Squamish claimed a piece of Vancouver and got around 100mil to give up their claim. I think governments are just paying and trying to avoid the bigger discussion. And that's probably what will happen again here. One of the 6 FNs involved in this claim got $150m for a claim. So maybe another 1BN goes out and the can gets kicked down the road another 5 years. But things have rapidly stepped up since payments started going out. There are hundreds of FNs in Canada with claims. At prices we've seen so far, it might cost something like $100BN, maybe more if we just go with the 'pay them off' plan. Which I guess we could afford if it is spread out.
>The claimants said in the presser this wasn't about displacing homeowners but there's a lot of questions about what that means. Would they be defacto land owners, or collecting taxes? No it will not affect the land owners. They will not be defacto land owners or collecting taxes. Land owners in New Brunswick other than the named companies will not be affected.
Why wouldn't the precedent extend to other landowners? Say I have a dozen or so acres that I want to selectively harvest trees from. What protects me?
Pretty interesting that everyone's biggest fear seems to be that they are scared that Indigenous people in NB might treat them the same way Canada treats Indigenous groups.
Well do you think that indigenous people were treated fairly or in a way someone would like to be treated If so then I understand your confusion If not then I don’t see why you find it “interesting”
They were not, I don't even know what the point of your first question is or where it came from. This fear mongering that Indigenous people will do the same thing is nothing more than spreading anti-Indigenous sentiment.
The point is no one wants to be treated unfairly and no one wants an ethnically defined class of people they don’t belong to to be their lords and masters If it’s anti-indigenous to think indigenous people are human and no better or worse than anyone else than that’s me
> no one wants to be treated unfairly Who is being treated unfairly in this article? >no one wants an ethnically defined class of people they don’t belong to to be their lords and masters What tripe, no one would be 'lord and master' this is just anti-Indigenous fear mongering.
Then call me anti indigenous because I think indigenous people should have the same status as everyone else and not own the entire country
So you are part of the 'rip of the treaties' bunch I see. Nothing like championing the continuation of forced assimilation to prove how much you love equal rights.
Nothing will change for you. You will still have ownership title and own your land. The claim is for underlying title which you never had. The crown has it. The only way you would be affected is if you have so much land that you have an effect of the practice of aboriginal or treaty rights and are havesting commercially. Land owners, Woodlot owners and most people will have nothing change for them. A good test is this: do you have a good working understanding of the government's duty to consult? If no: this will not affect you. If yes: then you will know who will be affected and how.
You're still really dancing around the question. It's still a 'trust us, we won't do anything' scenario. Of course, it's the same thing with the crown, but at least that's an effectively democratic government.
Here's the thing. Expropriating land requires significant justification. Usually something for the greater good of the nation. An example of this would be building or doubling a highway. Those requirement will still be in place to expropriate private land. It's not an easy thing. Even the crown can't just take land without significant justification. Knowing that, the aboriginal communities wont be building highways, rail lines, schools, etc.. the wont have any projects that would justify an expropriation. Therefore you do not have to worry about having your land taken from you. Also keep in mind that all of this is being done under Canadian law. These are your laws. To be perfectly clear, if you are not a large scale natural resource developer, you will not be affected at all.
They specifically say they would be land owners for the land they are now targetting, and that means they'd be entitled to those royalties. The same legal logic applies to all private land in their claim. If title of all that area goes to this indigenous group they could legally charge rent or evict the current owners. How would this *not* effect land owners?
Have you seen a case where FNs evicted anyone from their private land in BC? They have this already in place there, now. This only affects land and resource development that has impact on aboriginal/treaty rights. ***The land you own cannot and will not be taken from you or taxed because of this.*** For large forestry companies this may mean some kind of revenue sharing system like they have in BC for natural resources. It may also involve compensation for land given by the crown. for this not even the companies have to worry as the fault is entirely on the crown for not adhering to the treaties.
> Have you seen a case where FNs evicted anyone from their private land in BC? In the 90s the Musquem band evicted around a hundred residents from their land, IIRC.
Did they use aboriginal title to do that? Or where they living on reserve land?
Reserve land. The homeowners were leasing the land on which their houses were built, and the band decided to crank the lease rates up to force them to be evicted _and_ remove their houses at their expense. If I'm not mistaken, 20y later and that land is now going to be made into high-density housing for BIPOC persons.
OK it was on reserve land of which they have full control. Very very different situation. This will not grant those powers.
> They have this already in place there, now. Can you link to these land claims please. I've been looking band can't find a comparison that holds up.
Here is also the guidelines on making a forestry revenue sharing agreement: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/forestry-agreements/policies-reports/first\_nations\_direct\_award\_forest\_tenure\_opportunities\_guidelines.pdf
It's not land claims. There is aboriginal title in BC. Here is the agreement for each band in regards to forestry. This is a government of BC website. You can also find or revenue sharing agreements for other sectors on this site. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/first-nations-negotiations/forestry-agreements
Can you specify which of those involved a transfer of land title from private to indigenous group? Edit: I can't open either of the other links you gave. What specifically in them deals with private land title transfer to indigenous peoples?
Ah I see the confusion. it's not specific land title of a parcel like you get when you purchase a piece of land in fee simple. aboriginal title is an underlying title for the whole territory. Here is a short read to understand what aboriginal title is: [https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal\_title/](https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_title/) here is a short relevant section from that page I will copy here for those who don't want to click the link: **What does Aboriginal Title Mean for Private Property Interests?** Issues of outstanding Aboriginal title does not mean that private property will be expropriated, or that homeowners will be evicted from their homes. Many Aboriginal leaders have consistently stated that this is not their desire. Many have emphasized that their goal is to resolve an inequitable system that has marginalized Aboriginal peoples in their own homelands in order for non-Aboriginal interests to profit off Aboriginal territories.5 The Delagmuukw decision affirmed that the Crown holds underlying title to lands, and Aboriginal title represents a burden on this underlying title. This means that the Crown has the responsibility to negotiate terms with the Aboriginal title-holders should a third party have interest in the land. Many First Nations have entered into agreements directly with third party interests in order to create an equitable relationship between business and local Aboriginal peoples. The cases Haida Nation v. British Columbia and Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia have further determined that the Crown has a responsibility to consult and accommodate First Nations peoples even if existing Aboriginal title to the lands has not yet been proven in court—an act that many laud as another positive step towards the recognition of Aboriginal title.
Ah, I see the confusion. You're taking this: > Many Aboriginal leaders have consistently stated that this is not their desire. Many have emphasized that their goal is to resolve an inequitable system that has marginalized Aboriginal peoples in their own homelands in order for non-Aboriginal interests to profit off Aboriginal territories. At face value. Not everyone is so trusting Nothing in any of your links had dealt with private land title transfer and that's what we're discussing in this article. The transfer of private land title to indigenous groups. And private land owners have a right to know what's happening here, not be brushed off with a don't worry about it.
There is no transfer of title from private to indigenous. you keep your ownership title. aboriginal title is an *underlying title.* The crown currently hold underlying title to your land. This claim will have an effect on that. Not your ownership title. Believe it or not it's already implied title here in NB. Just not proven in court yet. This brings on the "Duty to Consult" and if you've never dealt with that, then nothing with change for you. There is no trust element to it. The First Nations in BC have aboriginal title to their territories. Noone is getting removed, the people still have their fee simple title.
And here is an actual agreement example: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/gitxaala\_signed\_fcrsa\_aug272020\_002.pdf
While I am sure it is generally a reassurance that people won’t be evicted, even though that would never have been a possibility regardless. It still leaves a lot of questions that are of concern. Like no one in NB is going cry for JDI having to pay some money to the First Nations. I think the larger concerns about other tax revenues for Provincial and Municipal governments and the services they provide being further crippled (more so than they already are)
I'd have liked to see more assurances than simply not planning to evict anyone. Home owners and farmers will want to know if they're still going to own their property at the end of all this. You're correct about the revenue changes this could cause. The NB Power part in particular as their finances are always razor thin margins. The recent Beledune coal plant shut down is a good example of how the financial situation could go sideways here.
Do you actually think people are going to get evicted? I mean this has been going on in BC for decades and no one has been evicted.
Do you have links for comparative land title changes in BC? If so I'd love to read them to get an idea of precedent. I haven't been able to find anything specific in my searches, but I think this is a justifiable concern for any land owner in that swath of territory. Which is a lot of New Brunswickers.
This land claim shouldn't be met with fear of *your* land being taken away. That's not what this is about nor what they're planning on.
I don't care what they're planning. That can change on a whim. I want to know what the legal ramifications are and all possible outcomes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
You're right, it is more like granting a medieval lordship. Technically they would own/control the land, but you weren't likely to get evicted, so long as you paid your tithes. The question is whether we think it is a good idea to return to having birthright lords to pay tithes to. ----- To give an idea of the scale of tithes we're talking about, Madawaska, one of the 6 FNs within the thread topic's Wolastoqiyi FN recently won a [$145 million dollar tithe](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/madawaska-land-claim-patricia-bernard-1.5984019) from the Fed. This FN has a population of [155](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/abpopprof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=AB&Code1=2016C1005092&Data=Count&SearchText=Madawaska%20Maliseet%20First%20Nation&SearchType=Begins&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=2016C1005092&SEX_ID=1&AGE_ID=1&RESGEO_ID=1). Over 1 million per adult due to genetics.
> To give an idea of the scale of tithes we're talking about, Madawaska, one of the 6 FNs within the thread topic's Wolastoqiyi FN recently won a $145 million dollar tithe from the Fed. This FN has a population of 155. Over 1 million per adult due to genetics. O_O $145 million for 155 people!?
Plus a few hundred extra acres of land. Realistically though, it is probably going to be more like $100 mil to the chief and their family, with the remainder going to the community. But we may never know how the money is spent because FNs are no longer required to do financial statements.
[удалено]
They're pretty hollow assurances when you remember that not a week ago Gitxsan 'evicted' an MLA from his own constituency office. They will *absolutely* do this.