Working With the Real Aboriginal Leadership
A new Aboriginal Caucus has been formed, recognized and nurtured by Harper's government.
The mythology that says economic development can occur on remote isolated reserves and that recognition of property rights isn't essential to such development needs to be put to rest. Economic development has always occurred in cities, and always will, for the simple reason that markets, labour and cost effective infrastructure (roads, public utilities, connections to global destinations via air and sea ports, etc), three essential ingredients are right there and in abundant supply in large urban centres, something the Liberal and NDP parties have failed to grasp.
And only the hardcore old commies still think that communal ownership of property is a workable idea. If this initiative succeeds, goodbye Indian Industry. And by the way, anyone wanting a glimpse at how the Indian Industry thinks, listen to the June 21 Sunday Edition with Michael Enright, if you can stomach listening to his show.
"That's due, at least in part, to the Harper Conservatives' consistent refusal to be enslaved by political correctness.---
The governing party, which this week announced formation of a new aboriginal caucus, from the start has rejected the view that federal policy should cater to those on reserve -- common sense since most aboriginals now reside in cities."
"Conservatives also have openly called for more accountability on the part of band leaders and pushed both for greater empowerment of women and private property ownership on reserves."Yay!!! Long time overdue.
The mythology that says economic development can occur on remote isolated reserves and that recognition of property rights isn't essential to such development needs to be put to rest. Economic development has always occurred in cities, and always will, for the simple reason that markets, labour and cost effective infrastructure (roads, public utilities, connections to global destinations via air and sea ports, etc), three essential ingredients are right there and in abundant supply in large urban centres, something the Liberal and NDP parties have failed to grasp.
"The fact is, native people themselves want change which doubtless accounts for the fact that the Conservatives managed last fall to elect four aboriginal MPs compared to just one elected by the Liberals.ROTFLMAO!!!
At the inaugural meeting of the Conservatives' aboriginal caucus, the invited speaker was Calvin Helin, an aboriginal lawyer who wrote Dances with Dependency: Indigenous Success Through Self-Reliance.
Predictably, Helin's appearance was deemed inappropriate by the Liberals."
And only the hardcore old commies still think that communal ownership of property is a workable idea. If this initiative succeeds, goodbye Indian Industry. And by the way, anyone wanting a glimpse at how the Indian Industry thinks, listen to the June 21 Sunday Edition with Michael Enright, if you can stomach listening to his show.
posted by Louise at 7:31 am
13 Comments:
"And only the hardcore old commies still think that communal ownership of property is a workable idea."
Would this include the Government of Canada, give that Crown Land in Canada represents about 89% of the land in Canada?
Perhaps you could explain why a First Nation would want to sell off its one imperishable asset, when it can successfully generate revenue in perpetuity through rights of entry and access, resource revenue agreements, Impact Benefits Agreements that are building schools and hospitals, providing scholarship, and guaranteeing training and employment?
How precisely does selling off the land base benefit a First Nation?
The answer to that is right there in your second paragraph. Changes to the law have to take place to achieve this When land in Canada is sold to a German it does not become part of Germany. The Chiefs should fire you, Balb. You're preventing outside the box thinking because it threatens your livelihood.
"The answer to that is right there in your second paragraph. Changes to the law have to take place to achieve this.
I may need to be more precise than I was in my previous response. I am operating under the assumption that you actually understand the mechanics of a land claim and treaty.
I noted the following as the potential benefits of retention of the land base:
- licensing rights of entry and access,
- negotiation of resource revenue agreements,
- negotiation of Impact Benefits Agreements, that include provision of schools and hospitals, scholarships, and guarantees of training and employment.
All those benefits exist NOW, under the current Claims and Treaties system. Sagamok Anishnabek just negotiated an IBA with INCO that provides all the above, AND the FN retains its land. All of it. Nunavut ditto, with a whole range of uranium mining companies in the Kivalliq.
So - why exactly is it preferable to SELL land, which loses it forever, as opposed to negotiating that kind of deal?
(Heavy sigh. Heavy sigh.) Selling land doesn't lose it forever. And besides, who said anything about selling land. I can sell my house to someone else. The town still levies and collects taxes.
Are you familiar with Hernando de Soto's work on the power of property (legal title and other kinds of identification) in places like Peru? If not, google him and understand where I'm coming from.
"(Heavy sigh. Heavy sigh.) Selling land doesn't lose it forever."
Sorry, I don't understand that statement. If you give up title to land, you lose title to land. What are you talking about?
"And besides, who said anything about selling land. I can sell my house to someone else. The town still levies and collects taxes."
That's because your property remains part of the municipality. When a First Nation or land claims settlement area cedes title, it ceases to be their territory.
Under current legislation, as I said, they can RETAIN title, but grant rights of entry and access, development, and so on. They can do that NOW. So please: when you talk about selling land but not losing it, what on earth are you talking about??
"Are you familiar with Hernando de Soto's work on the power of property (legal title and other kinds of identification) in places like Peru? If not, google him and understand where I'm coming from."
I am, thanks. I've read a good deal of his work with tremendous interest. The problem in applying his approaches to Canada lies in the fact that his models assume a complete absence of legal title, rather that solid legal fee simple title, held for surface and subsurface lands and backed by well defined rights which allow the title holders to negotiate the kind of benefits I've been talking about.
Reread my blog post balb. Nowhere does it mention land claims or surrendering land or anything like that. You're obviously on a different planet. What I am talking about, and only tangentally, is what needs to be in place to create wealth. There was a lot about that last week in connection with the AFN election. The primary focus of my entry is the fresh approach the Canadian government is taking and you've gone off on a wild goose chase AS USUAL.
Oh, and the concept of crown land is hardly "communal ownership of property". What I'm talking about is what was practiced with disasterous consequences in old Soviet Russia with things like the collective farms or the Kibbutzim movement in the early years of the Israeli state. They were an interesting experiment but they don't provide the conditions for wealth creation.
"The concept of crown land is hardly "communal ownership of property".
Well, it is, actually. The land is held by the Crown, which leases it at the pleasure of the Crown for various purposes, including, in some cases, exploration and development.
"What I'm talking about is what was practiced with disasterous consequences in old Soviet Russia with things like the collective farms or the Kibbutzim movement in the early years of the Israeli state."
I get the distinction, but I don't see that kind of primitive socialism being practiced in Aboriginal communities today. My relatives own and operate their own businesses on reserve; entrepreneurship seems to be thriving. Calvin is right in that way, but he represents one end of a continuum: there are a lot of very business-savvy councils who believe that you can leverage more money and more opportunities by preserving the land base intact, rather than privatizing it.
You haven't addressed the question I asked a few times. You applaud the the notion of "private property on reserves", but you say you're not actually suggesting that such property would require loss of Band Land. How did you propose that should work?
Elementary my dear. The same way a municipality works, or for that matter, the crown. They regulate what use the land can be put to, and collect taxes from those who own the land.
You've really outdone yourself today. Spin, misinterpretation, reading between the lines and finding all sorts of stuff that isn't there, going off on big tangents. Blah, blah, blahing until you're blue in the face.
"The same way a municipality works, or for that matter, the crown. They regulate what use the land can be put to, and collect taxes from those who own the land."
Under the current system, a reserve or claims group can regulate the used land can be put to, collect resource revenues from developers, PLUS any other benefits negotiable under an IBA, AND retain full title in perpetuity.
Sorry, but you haven't explained why "selling" land is preferable.
Balb, if you want to go on and on and on and on and on over a point that you have erroneously (deliberately?) attributed to me and have grossly misconstrued in any case, go right ahead. I'll keep posting your silly attempts to bait and switch. I'm not interested in playing games designed to boost your ego. As you may have noticed I have moved on, even if you can't. Have fun blathering in the echo chamber.
No problem. I have a much better sense now of what you actually know about claims, treaties and land title. Thanks.
So did Martin luther King Jr. get along with rednecks??
How do you stomach the staunch hypocrisy of the government; here they are calling for accountability when they in fact created the administrative system that First Nations operate under?
Post a Comment
<< Home