Results 1 to 37 of 37
  1. #1

    Canada has issues too. Post #2: Property rights

    Seems Canada has an issue with letting the Natives actually OWN property. See for yourself:

    A Step Toward Private Property Rights

    In partnership with the BMO Bank of Montreal, the federal government and the Saskatchewan Lac La Ronge Indian Band recently announced a new on-reserve home ownership loan program. The program is intended to promote private home ownership on reserves.

    Pride of ownership provides a powerful motivation for individuals to improve their property. It explains why home owners are willing to spend their time and money mowing their lawns and fixing their houses: The property is theirs and theirs alone. They own it in “fee simple” – that is to say, outright. As the expression goes, no one ever paid money to wash a rented car.

    As a visit to a typical Canadian reserve reveals, such pride of ownership is absent in many native communities. Housing is dilapidated and there is little evidence that occupants care much about their properties.

    Needless to say, this is not a reflection of aboriginals themselves, but rather an indictment of our government’s native policy. Currently, natives who live on reserves cannot own their land. Even the tribes themselves cannot own the land. Instead, the land is held in trust by the Canadian government.

    While the new loan program will not enable the residents of Lac La Ronge Indian Band to own their homes in fee simple – meaning the federal government will still hold the land in trust – owning the bricks and mortar however, is a step in the right direction.

    To promote home ownership on reserves, the program will provide residents with a renewable 29 year lease on the building(s) located on a specific lot. Specifically, the Department of Indian Affairs will transfer a one-time payment of $1.7 million to the Lac La Ronge Indian Band for the new housing and loan program. Eligible residents will be able to obtain a $5,000 grant and a $15,000 short-term loan from the Indian band. The grant and/or loan are to be used to access loans for construction or purchase of owner-occupied, single family dwellings. BMO would provide the balance of the financing through a conventional mortgage. Existing home owners will be able to use the loans for renovations.

    Canadian courts will enforce the rights and obligations associated with ownership of the leases. The leases may also be left to an heir or sold to another person having a right to reside on the reserve. It is anticipated that holders of the leases will assume the mindset and habits of a true property owner. In the words of the Lac La Ronge Indian Band Chief Tammy Cook-Searson, “The option for home ownership gives Lac La Ronge Indian Band members the opportunity to create their own wealth through self-investment.”

    The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will continue to advocate for the federal government to transfer ownership of reserve land to eligible reserve members so fee simple ownership is available to natives. That said, the new housing and loan program is an encouraging step toward fee simple ownership. The band is able to secure more income, residents will become eligible for mortgage financing and Canadian taxpayers are relieved of some of the burden associated with the constant replenishment of native housing stock.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,305
    That's great; seems you're going on an anti-canada spree. You have to understand that this land is indian reserves; the united states had similar problems and treatment of indians was much poorer here. Also; it should be noted that most Indians don't believe in ownership, and that plan won't fly.

  3. #3
    Originally posted by Aea
    That's great; seems you're going on an anti-canada spree. You have to understand that this land is indian reserves; the united states had similar problems and treatment of indians was much poorer here. Also; it should be noted that most Indians don't believe in ownership, and that plan won't fly.
    No, I like Canada. I am not Anti-Canadian. But a few like to post Anti-President Bush, etc.. Anti-America Politics, etc... so it is fair to post the propblems in their back yard as well. No?
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    892
    It ain't easy livin' in a white man's world.

    There are many many issues faced by the natives (or whatever the latest PC term is) Land ownership is only one of them, and one I belive may be on the back burner for awhile

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    608
    I do find it is a little unfair how the natives get free education and no taxes and stuff. I mean, what is so big? The people currently living weren't the first people so why should they get benifits? Sorry if I sound a little mad, but its just annoying how we pay like $1.20 for ONE LETRE of gas and they get it for 60 cents in my city. It is very unfair.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY USA
    Posts
    839

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,305
    Because it's not their land? It was taken from them (the same way the orginal American Settlers took land so don't start up an argument there) when the French Settlers came to Canada. Later on when moral reform took place the land was reserved for the tribes. And now Canada is following America by giving them that land for ownership. I don't see this as an issue and more as a reform.


    Also, I don't see anyone that posts anti-american posts on here. Anti-bush posts are aplenty, maybe because someone deserved it. Just because he's a wartime president doesn't mean you have to run around licking his *** at every corner.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    876
    As the article stated, it's not the land they are giving for ownership - it's the dwelling/structure/"bricks and mortar".

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    FT Worth, TX
    Posts
    5,098
    well instead of attacking canada in 3 threads why not just merge them into one thread?

    I mean you're so good at pointing out flaws in other countries, yet your so fast to overlook the flaws within our current adminstration.

    I certainly don't think you would want me making threads pointing out those flaws now would you?
    Last edited by Kerry Jones; 07-20-2005 at 11:47 PM.
    Kerry Jones

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,675
    I mean you're so good at pointing out flaws in other countries, yet your so fast to overlook the flaws within our current adminstration.
    What goes around comes around. I don't know how many times I see people from outside the US posting stories criticizing my country that they don't live and have never been to either. If they can dish it out then they should be able to take it. No country is perfect and we all have a lot of problems.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by CrazyTech
    What goes around comes around. I don't know how many times I see people from outside the US posting stories criticizing my country that they don't live and have never been to either. If they can dish it out then they should be able to take it. No country is perfect and we all have a lot of problems.
    Right, but I think there's a difference between specifically "hunting and gathering" for stories that might happen to shed some negative light on Canada and its politics and simply posting news or opinions related to the U.S. that evoke some sort of reaction in you. One's called trolling; the other's called healthy debate.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY USA
    Posts
    839

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by Take-IT-EZZI
    So why isn't anyone debating the story?

    All you guys are saying is you don't like us talking about you
    What's there to debate? Glenn's point is moot, especially if one actually reads the story! It's -- I quote from the article -- "a step toward private property rights." Again, how is this bad?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY USA
    Posts
    839

  15. #15
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    What's there to debate? Glenn's point is moot, especially if one actually reads the story! It's -- I quote from the article -- "a step toward private property rights." Again, how is this bad?
    Who said it was bad? I did not. I said they have an issue with it, and presented an article with some information on the subject. Could be a negative or a positive. I am merely showing an issue they are dealing with. It is up to the reader to conclude good or bad.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    Who said it was bad? I did not. I said they have an issue with it, and presented an article with some information on the subject. Could be a negative or a positive. I am merely showing an issue they are dealing with. It is up to the reader to conclude good or bad.
    That's utterly hilarious. So, by posting a thread with the title, "Canada has issues too," you're saying that by no means are you implying that there's some sort of political agenda behind this? I recall you saying before that you were tired of people making all these anti-American/anti-Bush posts, so in response, you were going to post your views/problems/IMO, trolling regarding Canada.

    How do you actually feel about this issue? Let's discuss it, being that you brought it up. Should Canada not increase the property (and otherwise) rights of their aboriginals? Is this not a step in the right direction? What issue(s) do you have with this?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,305
    That Canada has issues too!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,046
    Common types of troll messages or activities:

    -intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error; often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

    -after a flamewar ensues, pretending to be innocent

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

  19. #19
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    That's utterly hilarious. So, by posting a thread with the title, "Canada has issues too," you're saying that by no means are you implying that there's some sort of political agenda behind this? I recall you saying before that you were tired of people making all these anti-American/anti-Bush posts, so in response, you were going to post your views/problems/IMO, trolling regarding Canada.

    How do you actually feel about this issue? Let's discuss it, being that you brought it up. Should Canada not increase the property (and otherwise) rights of their aboriginals? Is this not a step in the right direction? What issue(s) do you have with this?
    "issues" does not infer bad. You are doing that. Stop trolling. You made trolling accusations in another threa of mine too.

    I think it is an important issue, and I am glad work is being done on it. I do hope the aboriginals get to own their property.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Great, Glenn, what an interesting thread, now that you've said you weren't trying to enforce any political agenda or anything.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NY USA
    Posts
    839
    Originally posted by case
    Common types of troll messages or activities:

    -intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error; often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted but may instead continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.

    -after a flamewar ensues, pretending to be innocent

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
    This applies to probably like 70% of the threads in this section of the forum.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3,675
    Right, but I think there's a difference between specifically "hunting and gathering" for stories that might happen to shed some negative light on Canada and its politics and simply posting news or opinions related to the U.S. that evoke some sort of reaction in you. One's called trolling; the other's called healthy debate.
    Well what is that difference? Anytime news here in America happens there's immediately a thread started about it usually full of people from Canada amongst other countries talking about it. Most of the time, it's usually filled with negative comments in some way, shape or form about the country. TalkMilitary has no more of an agenda than others in the forum when they start the same thread.

    It's only classified as trolling when it's done to you, right?

    This applies to probably like 70% of the threads in this section of the forum.
    Agreed.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    FT Worth, TX
    Posts
    5,098
    "issues" does not infer bad. You are doing that. Stop trolling. You made trolling accusations in another threa of mine too.
    Glenn, i'm sure you could call me an internet troll, but i'm curious as to what agenda you have against Canada?
    Kerry Jones

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Under the sea
    Posts
    4,208
    Originally posted by Kerry Jones
    Glenn, i'm sure you could call me an internet troll, but i'm curious as to what agenda you have against Canada?
    He's upset because we have better beer

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Prince Edward Island
    Posts
    964
    This article is taken out of context.

    While its true that Aboriginals can't own Reserve Land, there is nothing stated anywhere in the constitution or treaties that prevents them from Owning land Off-Reserve.

    People tend to forget that.

    Indian Reserve:

    In Canada, an Indian reserve is specified by the Indian Act as a "tract of land, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, that has been set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of a band." ......

    ......The Indian Act gives the Minister of Indian Affairs the right to "determine whether any purpose for which lands in a reserve are used is for the use and benefit of the band." Title to land within the reserve may only be transferred to the band or to individual band members.
    Reserve lands may not be seized legally, nor is the personal property of a band or a band member living on a reserve subject to "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band" (section 89 (1) of the Indian Act)......

    Reserve lands and the personal property of bands and resident band members are exempt from all forms of taxation except local taxation. Corporations owned by members of First Nations are not exempt, however. This exemption has allowed band members operating in proprietorships or partnerships to sell heavily taxed goods such as cigarettes on their reserves at prices considerably lower than those at stores off the reserves.
    Last edited by MikeM; 07-21-2005 at 02:37 PM.
    [url]I got nothing/url]

    For clarity's sake, don't use "<ip address of hostname>" use the ACTUAL 32-bit numeric IP address of the machine.

  26. #26
    Originally posted by adam
    He's upset because we have better beer
    Better? That is debateable. Sure, if you compare it to buweiser etc...

    But the micro-brews here do rock. Of course, last time I was in Van, I managed to find some good beer.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    One of the footholds of democracy is freedom of speech.
    I don't see any problem with Glenn's post or the thread title.

    Canada does have problems. Many of them. So does every other country in the world.

    There are a couple of issues though.
    One is that our problems tend to remain internal. The decisions we make affect our own country and our own people and we like to keep it that way.
    If you want to know why there are so many negative posts against Bush it's because the decisions he is making are affecting tens of millions of people outside of the US and rarely is it a positive affect.

    Back to the main issue. While that article is interesting it fails to mention a few items, mainly that native Indians living on reserves pay no taxes and get many breaks from government.

    All native Canadians are welcome to leave the reserve, Government owned land, and get a job and pay taxes and buy their own land.
    Just like all other Canadians.

  28. #28
    Originally posted by blue27


    All native Canadians are welcome to leave the reserve, Government owned land, and get a job and pay taxes and buy their own land.
    Just like all other Canadians.
    Good point. I just find it curious, and do not grasp "why" they would not be able to own their own small chunk on the reservation. IMHO, would it not inspire more pride amongst them? That usually leads to less crime (not sure if there is a crime issue or not), pride, and a desire to better the area. Just not sure what to think on this issue, as I sure there is a lot of history behind the reasons etc... that I am not aware of.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    I would support 100% financing the land back to the native Indians.
    At the moment it is government owned land and absolutely worthless.
    I say give all Indians who qualify, low interest financing to purchase the land they live on.
    A pre-requisite to that would be that they would agree to pay land taxes and provincial and federal taxes.

    I see no reason for segregation.

  30. #30
    Originally posted by blue27
    I would support 100% financing the land back to the native Indians.
    At the moment it is government owned land and absolutely worthless.
    I say give all Indians who qualify, low interest financing to purchase the land they live on.
    A pre-requisite to that would be that they would agree to pay land taxes and provincial and federal taxes.

    I see no reason for segregation.
    Hmmm, That would be reasonable. However it would have to be an "all or nothing" type thing. Otherwise one person lives "mortgage free" next to somebody else paying for their property and taxes. This may create divides, as not everybody would have the ability to buy their land, so that would muddle the oppurtunity. Almost like a Govt sponsored welfare system, in a way. If there are not enough available jobs to go around to put everybody on level footing (or the ability to get on level footing), then it could be a mess.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    Hmmm, That would be reasonable. However it would have to be an "all or nothing" type thing. Otherwise one person lives "mortgage free" next to somebody else paying for their property and taxes. This may create divides, as not everybody would have the ability to buy their land, so that would muddle the oppurtunity. Almost like a Govt sponsored welfare system, in a way. If there are not enough available jobs to go around to put everybody on level footing (or the ability to get on level footing), then it could be a mess.

    Well, just like everywhere else there are those who have and those who don't have. Some would be in a position to purchase land and others wouldn't.
    You're right though, it has to be all or nothing, meaning that all of the bands would have to agree to dissolve the reserves and make them open game.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Prince Edward Island
    Posts
    964
    Originally posted by blue27
    Well, just like everywhere else there are those who have and those who don't have. Some would be in a position to purchase land and others wouldn't.
    You're right though, it has to be all or nothing, meaning that all of the bands would have to agree to dissolve the reserves and make them open game.

    HA, then all of the Land developers could move in, Purchase it all and build closed Communities --
    [url]I got nothing/url]

    For clarity's sake, don't use "<ip address of hostname>" use the ACTUAL 32-bit numeric IP address of the machine.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by MikeM
    HA, then all of the Land developers could move in, Purchase it all and build closed Communities --

    As long as those land developers were native Indian.
    It still comes down to the facts of life. People with money will dictate what happens to the land in an open market.

  34. #34
    Originally posted by MikeM
    HA, then all of the Land developers could move in, Purchase it all and build closed Communities --
    So what is the solution? Or can there be one? It seems on the surface, that any possible solution would leave some people "high and dry", so to speak. Yet not having the ability to own land and contribute to the tax base is alianating in itself.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  35. #35
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Prince Edward Island
    Posts
    964
    Here's the thing -- think of the Reserve as being a protected area -- It cannot be bought or sold.

    Nothing is Stopping Our First Nations People's from owning land, only owning land on the reserve.

    First nations People did not build the Houses on the Reserve, it was built by the Government of Canada. Wanna have your own?? Do like everyone else -- buy your own Plot and build.
    [url]I got nothing/url]

    For clarity's sake, don't use "<ip address of hostname>" use the ACTUAL 32-bit numeric IP address of the machine.

  36. #36
    Originally posted by MikeM
    Here's the thing -- think of the Reserve as being a protected area -- It cannot be bought or sold.

    Nothing is Stopping Our First Nations People's from owning land, only owning land on the reserve.

    First nations People did not build the Houses on the Reserve, it was built by the Government of Canada. Wanna have your own?? Do like everyone else -- buy your own Plot and build.
    Right, we have been over that aspect. The issue seems to be residents may tend to let things slide and become "less than desireable", as they have no real feeling of ownership on the reservation. How do you change that trend?
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  37. #37
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Prince Edward Island
    Posts
    964
    As bad as this sounds, it seems to be a cultural thing. While not limited to aboriginals, it does tend to be more prevalent.

    We have a number of reserves here -- and Not all domiciles are in Bad shape. May people take pride in where they live and keep the place nicer than I would.

    For Instance, a few miles from here is a small reserve. As you drive by, you can look in and see many of the lots are well manicured, the homes are imacaulate and the car is brand new.

    While not 400 feet off the land is a house that has 15-20 cars that are in various states of disrepair and the house is in desperate need of a new front porch, deck and paint.

    It is owned by non-natives.

    How do you give people pride in what or where they live?? Give them something to live for i suppose -- tell them to get off the Welfare, give up the Poor me attitude, give up the "You owe me, because i was here first" attitude.

    Make them work for what they have the same as every other citizen of this country.
    [url]I got nothing/url]

    For clarity's sake, don't use "<ip address of hostname>" use the ACTUAL 32-bit numeric IP address of the machine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •