BC Native Band Takes First Step Towards Private Property

[Anonymous]

This is a baby step for sure, but still a step in the right direction. This probably scares the hell out of groups like AFN, corrupt band councils and others that make a tidy living off of Native dependence.

This month, in a remote corner of northern B.C., just a few kilometres from the Alaskan border, three modest houses entered Canadian First Nations history.



The residences, all located on the self-governed lands of the Nisga'a Nation, are the first privately owned homes on Canadian native land. They can be mortgaged, they can be transferred without the approval of either Ottawa or local administrators and they can even be sold to a non-aboriginal.



As Dorothy Elliott, the Nisga'a deputy registrar of land titles, summed up to the Vancouver Sun this week, the Nisga'a can now own their homes "just like they would in the rest of Canada."



It is only three more private houses in a country of nine million homeowners. But with these homes, the Nisga'a are pioneering one of the most divisive issues in modern aboriginal politics.



To the Nisga'a and the First Nations looking to follow their example, private ownership of aboriginal land will pull their people out of poverty and put Canadian First Nations on the road toward unprecedented levels of economic and political power. For opponents, Nisga'a-style land reforms will be the trap door by which First Nations culture is inalterably scrubbed from the Canadian landscape.



Whatever happens, it all started with three houses in northern B.C.



"We are no longer beggars in our own land," Nisga'a president Joe Gosnell announced to a cheering crowd in Gitwinksihlkw, B.C., in 2000. "We are free to make our own mistakes, savour our own victories and stand on our own feet."



The occasion was the enaction of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, a modern treaty ceding 2,000 square kilometres of B.C.'s Nass Valley to the Nisga'a people, along with $250-million and complete control over the area's forestry and fishing management.



Buried in the self-governing agreement was a measure, first raised by Nisga'a elders in 1913, that one day soon, Nisga'a would be able to inhabit privately owned, mortgageable homes.



"We negotiated our way into Canada, and what British Columbians take for granted in land ownership is now available to Nisga'a homeowners," said Kevin McKay, chair of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. "We aspire to a market economy, and this is a key feature of any market economy — and we're no different."



The virtues of privatizing native land have been pushed by as diverse a group as Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, former Indian Affairs minister Jim Prentice and Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan. With private ownership, goes the argument, Canada's on-reserve First Nations can leverage their lands to obtain credit, and with credit, they can break the "cycle of dependence."



Bert Mercer, one of the first Nisga'a homeowners, told the Vancouver Sun this week he was planning to leverage his home to start a sport fishing business on the Nass River. Fellow homeowner Matthew Moore reported that he would leverage his plot to buy rental property on Vancouver Island.



Currently, at least 12 other First Nations are pushing for federal approval to implement Nisga'a-style land reform. While the Nisga'a, as a self-governing First Nation, could simply pass the measure on their own accord, First Nations under the Indian Act "will need legislation to transfer title from the Crown to the willing First Nation," wrote Joseph Quesnel, a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, in an email to the National Post.



That effort is being spearheaded by the First Nations Property Ownership Initiative, a federally funded program led by Manny Jules, former chief of B.C.'s T'kemlups Indian Band.



"My home is owned by the Minister of Indian Affairs," wrote Mike LeBourdais, chief of B.C.'s Whispering Pines First Nation, in an email to the National Post. "All we are asking for is the same option that other Canadians have. This isn't about special rights. It is about equal ones."





'I'm elected to lead and make decision for my people [and] this is my Idle No More movement'

.

Among Canada's more than 600 other First Nations, Chief LeBourdais' view is in the minority. At its 2010 General Assembly, the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution stating bluntly that "fee simple title," the landholding inaugurated by the Nisga'a, "will lead ultimately to the individual privatization of indigenous collective lands and resources and impose the colonizer's model on our Peoples."



Last year, the mere mention of the Manny Jules-drafted First Nations Property Ownership Act in the 2012 federal budget was one of the main factors that helped kick off the Idle No More movement.



Pamela Palmater, a Mi'kmaq lawyer from New Brunswick and key Idle No More spokeswoman, in April called the Nisga'a plan "not a solution to any of the issues First Nations are facing."



Fears of private ownership of Indigenous land are certainly not without precedent. Most famously, in 1887 the United States imposed the Dawes Act; a homestead-style system that essentially liquidated all collective Indigenous land and forced Indians to settle on privately owned, European-style farm plots.



The act was premised on the so-called "civilizing power"of private property, but within 30 years, all it had done was shatter traditional governance structures and help to hand more than two-thirds of all American native land — an area the size of Germany — to white settlers. Today, the Dawes Act is seen as a social catastrophe in league with Canada's Indian Residential Schools.



In Canada, it was partly the fear of a similar land grab that prompted the government of Alexander Mackenzie to enshrine the 1876 Indian Act with a ban on all forms of "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution" on reserve land.

[Obvious Li]

i'm sure Homy will find something scary about empowering natives but it is a step in the right direction.....

[Anonymous]

This is a baby step for sure, but still a step in the right direction. This probably scares the hell out of groups like AFN, corrupt band councils and others that make a tidy living off of Native dependence.

This month, in a remote corner of northern B.C., just a few kilometres from the Alaskan border, three modest houses entered Canadian First Nations history.



The residences, all located on the self-governed lands of the Nisga'a Nation, are the first privately owned homes on Canadian native land. They can be mortgaged, they can be transferred without the approval of either Ottawa or local administrators and they can even be sold to a non-aboriginal.



As Dorothy Elliott, the Nisga'a deputy registrar of land titles, summed up to the Vancouver Sun this week, the Nisga'a can now own their homes "just like they would in the rest of Canada."



It is only three more private houses in a country of nine million homeowners. But with these homes, the Nisga'a are pioneering one of the most divisive issues in modern aboriginal politics.



To the Nisga'a and the First Nations looking to follow their example, private ownership of aboriginal land will pull their people out of poverty and put Canadian First Nations on the road toward unprecedented levels of economic and political power. For opponents, Nisga'a-style land reforms will be the trap door by which First Nations culture is inalterably scrubbed from the Canadian landscape.



Whatever happens, it all started with three houses in northern B.C.



"We are no longer beggars in our own land," Nisga'a president Joe Gosnell announced to a cheering crowd in Gitwinksihlkw, B.C., in 2000. "We are free to make our own mistakes, savour our own victories and stand on our own feet."



The occasion was the enaction of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, a modern treaty ceding 2,000 square kilometres of B.C.'s Nass Valley to the Nisga'a people, along with $250-million and complete control over the area's forestry and fishing management.



Buried in the self-governing agreement was a measure, first raised by Nisga'a elders in 1913, that one day soon, Nisga'a would be able to inhabit privately owned, mortgageable homes.



"We negotiated our way into Canada, and what British Columbians take for granted in land ownership is now available to Nisga'a homeowners," said Kevin McKay, chair of the Nisga'a Lisims Government. "We aspire to a market economy, and this is a key feature of any market economy — and we're no different."



The virtues of privatizing native land have been pushed by as diverse a group as Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, former Indian Affairs minister Jim Prentice and Conservative strategist Tom Flanagan. With private ownership, goes the argument, Canada's on-reserve First Nations can leverage their lands to obtain credit, and with credit, they can break the "cycle of dependence."



Bert Mercer, one of the first Nisga'a homeowners, told the Vancouver Sun this week he was planning to leverage his home to start a sport fishing business on the Nass River. Fellow homeowner Matthew Moore reported that he would leverage his plot to buy rental property on Vancouver Island.



Currently, at least 12 other First Nations are pushing for federal approval to implement Nisga'a-style land reform. While the Nisga'a, as a self-governing First Nation, could simply pass the measure on their own accord, First Nations under the Indian Act "will need legislation to transfer title from the Crown to the willing First Nation," wrote Joseph Quesnel, a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, in an email to the National Post.



That effort is being spearheaded by the First Nations Property Ownership Initiative, a federally funded program led by Manny Jules, former chief of B.C.'s T'kemlups Indian Band.



"My home is owned by the Minister of Indian Affairs," wrote Mike LeBourdais, chief of B.C.'s Whispering Pines First Nation, in an email to the National Post. "All we are asking for is the same option that other Canadians have. This isn't about special rights. It is about equal ones."





'I'm elected to lead and make decision for my people [and] this is my Idle No More movement'

.

Among Canada's more than 600 other First Nations, Chief LeBourdais' view is in the minority. At its 2010 General Assembly, the Assembly of First Nations passed a resolution stating bluntly that "fee simple title," the landholding inaugurated by the Nisga'a, "will lead ultimately to the individual privatization of indigenous collective lands and resources and impose the colonizer's model on our Peoples."



Last year, the mere mention of the Manny Jules-drafted First Nations Property Ownership Act in the 2012 federal budget was one of the main factors that helped kick off the Idle No More movement.



Pamela Palmater, a Mi'kmaq lawyer from New Brunswick and key Idle No More spokeswoman, in April called the Nisga'a plan "not a solution to any of the issues First Nations are facing."



Fears of private ownership of Indigenous land are certainly not without precedent. Most famously, in 1887 the United States imposed the Dawes Act; a homestead-style system that essentially liquidated all collective Indigenous land and forced Indians to settle on privately owned, European-style farm plots.



The act was premised on the so-called "civilizing power"of private property, but within 30 years, all it had done was shatter traditional governance structures and help to hand more than two-thirds of all American native land — an area the size of Germany — to white settlers. Today, the Dawes Act is seen as a social catastrophe in league with Canada's Indian Residential Schools.



In Canada, it was partly the fear of a similar land grab that prompted the government of Alexander Mackenzie to enshrine the 1876 Indian Act with a ban on all forms of "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution" on reserve land.

Aboriginal Canadians cannot own the house they live in if it is on reservation land?



I had no idea and it seems very wrong.

 :o

[Romero]

i'm sure Homy will find something scary about empowering natives but it is a step in the right direction.....

I'm all for it! We discussed something like this in the Tsawwassen First Nation development thread on VF. The idea of self-government here in BC seems to be working out quite well. Land claims are finally being settled, First Nations get real control of their territory, and now they have the opportunity to move forward.

[Anonymous]

i'm sure Homy will find something scary about empowering natives but it is a step in the right direction.....

I'm all for it! We discussed something like this in the Tsawwassen First Nation development thread on VF. The idea of self-government here in BC seems to be working out quite well. Land claims are finally being settled, First Nations get real control of their territory, and now they have the opportunity to move forward.

Hello Romero, how does housing work on reservations?



Do the inhabitants rent it or is it assigned and if so, by whom?



I am sorry for my ignorance, but this is all new to me.

[Romero]

No ignorance! Most of it has never made much sense anyway.



I was just responding to you when I got a phone call. Here it is!

Aboriginal Canadians cannot own the house they live in if it is on reservation land?



I had no idea and it seems very wrong.

 :o

It does seem crazy, doesn't it? But there's actually a good reason why when reserves don't have self-governance and settled land claims. If they were allowed to sell their homes on the private market, everybody outside the reserve would buy the homes and *poof* - no more reserve. Though I suspect that a lot of people in the past didn't want First Nations to be able to buy and sell homes anyway.



Now that the Nisga'a and Tsawwassen First Nations have certainty and control, they finally get to do what they want!

[Anonymous]

No ignorance! Most of it has never made much sense anyway.



I was just responding to you when I got a phone call. Here it is!

Aboriginal Canadians cannot own the house they live in if it is on reservation land?



I had no idea and it seems very wrong.

 :o

It does seem crazy, doesn't it? But there's actually a good reason why when reserves don't have self-governance and settled land claims. If they were allowed to sell their homes on the private market, everybody outside the reserve would buy the homes and *poof* - no more reserve. Though I suspect that a lot of people in the past didn't want First Nations to be able to buy and sell homes anyway.



Now that the Nisga'a and Tsawwassen First Nations have certainty and control, they finally get to do what they want!

If the people on reserves don't want reserves why is that negative?



I agree many people in the past had no desire to own reserve land, but Canada has changed and perhaps the real estate field should reflect that?

[Romero]

It's totally cool if a native no longer wants to live on their reserve, but the problem with being able to buy and sell homes on reserves is that reserves would end up disappearing bit by bit. No reserve would mean no territory and a loss of tradition and culture. Most First Nations don't want to lose what little they have left.



Hopefully self-governance is the answer. First Nation territory can be First Nation territory for sure and they can finally start enjoying some economic benefits.

[Romero]

More on the Tsawwassen First Nation development I mentioned earlier:

The most ambitious development in Delta, if not the entire country, lies on a mere 724 hectares of land belonging to the Treaty First Nation of the Tsawwassen people.



The development plans of the Tsawwassen First Nation, population 439, includes an estimated target density of 4,381 people from the construction of 1,584 single-detached homes and townhomes, and 280 apartmment units, all on 99-year leases.



Two massive shopping malls situated on 48 hectares of land will provide 167,000-square-meters (1.8 million-square-feet) of retail space built by Ivan Cambridge Ltd., and Property Development Group.



A further 560,000-square metre (6 million-square-feet) industrial space will be built in close proximity to Deltaport to take advantage of the imminent expansion there.



"The current initiatives will generate $1.21 billon in total construction spending, generating $348 million in construction employment income, and $75.7 million in property tax revenue," said Chief Bryce Williams. "Ongoing direct and indirect employment from the completion of these projects will yield a further $235 million in permanent employment income and an additional $23.3 million in income tax revenue."



"It's really good to see things on the go and it's going to be very beneficial to our community for many generations to come and that's what it's all about," said Williams, adding the projects will provide benefits to the entire region.



http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/3269southdeltaTsawwassen_Shores.jpg">



http://www.southdeltaleader.com/business/229331631.html">//http://www.southdeltaleader.com/business/229331631.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/cms/binary/5777821.jpg?size=620x400s">

[Anonymous]

It's totally cool if a native no longer wants to live on their reserve, but the problem with being able to buy and sell homes on reserves is that reserves would end up disappearing bit by bit. No reserve would mean no territory and a loss of tradition and culture. Most First Nations don't want to lose what little they have left.



Hopefully self-governance is the answer. First Nation territory can be First Nation territory for sure and they can finally start enjoying some economic benefits.

Does this mean the most basic of democratic rights, private property, can't work on reserves?

[Romero]

This article should explain things a bit!

Fears of private ownership of Indigenous land are certainly not without precedent. Most famously, in 1887 the United States imposed the Dawes Act; a homestead-style system that essentially liquidated all collective Indigenous land and forced Indians to settle on privately owned, European-style farm plots.



The act was premised on the so-called "civilizing power"of private property, but within 30 years, all it had done was shatter traditional governance structures and help to hand more than two-thirds of all American native land — an area the size of Germany — to white settlers. Today, the Dawes Act is seen as a social catastrophe in league with Canada's Indian Residential Schools.



In Canada, it was partly the fear of a similar land grab that prompted the government of Alexander Mackenzie to enshrine the 1876 Indian Act with a ban on all forms of "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution" on reserve land.



Whoever ends up owning the three plots, the Nisga'a will always retain ultimate title to the land. Homeowners will pay Nisga'a taxes, be subject to Nisga'a laws and if they die without a will, the property reverts to Nisga'a ownership. If the house is in the way of a public works project, the Nisga'a will even have the power of expropriation.



"It won't erode [Nisga'a] sovereignty," said Mr. Alcantara. "It's the same way that when Americans buy land in Toronto, Toronto's land base isn't being eroded."



http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/b-c-first-nation-leads-historic-and-controversial-move-toward-aboriginal-private-home-ownership/">//http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/b-c-first-nation-leads-historic-and-controversial-move-toward-aboriginal-private-home-ownership/

[Anonymous]

^^I read that article. Comparing private home property righs to the failed Dawes Act is a stretch. What the Nisga are doing is clearly not enough. Aboriginals should have the exact same rights to private property as Natives living off reserve. However, it is still a step in the right direction and hopefully it is incremental.

[Anonymous]

More on the Tsawwassen First Nation development I mentioned earlier:

The most ambitious development in Delta, if not the entire country, lies on a mere 724 hectares of land belonging to the Treaty First Nation of the Tsawwassen people.



The development plans of the Tsawwassen First Nation, population 439, includes an estimated target density of 4,381 people from the construction of 1,584 single-detached homes and townhomes, and 280 apartmment units, all on 99-year leases.



Two massive shopping malls situated on 48 hectares of land will provide 167,000-square-meters (1.8 million-square-feet) of retail space built by Ivan Cambridge Ltd., and Property Development Group.



A further 560,000-square metre (6 million-square-feet) industrial space will be built in close proximity to Deltaport to take advantage of the imminent expansion there.



"The current initiatives will generate $1.21 billon in total construction spending, generating $348 million in construction employment income, and $75.7 million in property tax revenue," said Chief Bryce Williams. "Ongoing direct and indirect employment from the completion of these projects will yield a further $235 million in permanent employment income and an additional $23.3 million in income tax revenue."



"It's really good to see things on the go and it's going to be very beneficial to our community for many generations to come and that's what it's all about," said Williams, adding the projects will provide benefits to the entire region.



http://media.bclocalnews.com/images/3269southdeltaTsawwassen_Shores.jpg">



http://www.southdeltaleader.com/business/229331631.html">//http://www.southdeltaleader.com/business/229331631.html

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/cms/binary/5777821.jpg?size=620x400s">

I don't even want to know how much one of those big houses would cost on the West coast and with that view. I could not afford to buy even if I was allowed.