This is what I’ve been banging on about since this began. Millions of Canadians occupy the middle of the political spectrum, are not racist, and would like to see improved opportunities and outcomes for First Nations.
The quickest way to turn those millions irrefutably and irreparably against FN in Canada is to endanger their property rights and values. There will be no coming back from this if FN continue down this path.
I don’t think any FN wants to take anyone’s land away.
It’s the activist judges, politicians most of whom are white virtue signallers or claim to be “Metis” (a loaded political term in FN politics) pushing for this.
What is this "activist judges" BS? That is some Trump level right wing brainwashing right there.
You think people go through law school, work in law for many years and finally after all that get raised to the bench to take away white peoples homes to give them to brown people?
What kind of special stupidity eats this garbage up?
Yah, my good friend in college who was indigenous was none too kind about the conditions and choices of his fellow comrades from his band.
Super smart guy. Took all the advantages afforded to him life from it, got a great education in electrical engineering and is killing it personally, but I've yet to meet anyone more critical of it all and he came from within. Which I suppose is what fuels some of that passion.
It's true. With most infrastructure projects many FN groups will approve of the project, only for a loud minority to protest and stall the projects. If the elected band councils vote to approve a project, the unelected tribal elders say it's illegitimate. The problem is the system of reconciliation is so open to being exploited in this way, that it must be reformed. And prior, more people on the centre were okay with the concept, but these land claims have damaged the reconciliation reputation, I'm afraid.
I totally agree. I think they’re kind of overstepping even with their demands if you see what they asked with the truth and reconciliation council, but when I complain to people, I’m told that’s how you negotiate.
I think people have a point with saying that. But if I were on the FN side of this issue I would try and be more tactical about it. It's a tough situation between all the media manipulation, various politicians with their own interests in mind etc. Either way, I find the current situation untenable. Though I don't expect it to be resolved anytime soon.
Honestly, my uninformed take is that 95% or more of FN people have absolutely no involvement in the process. There are decent chiefs and then there are shitty ones who know that no matter what they do it’ll get lost in the whole circus tent.
Anecdotally, I have friends and family that are FN. Most aren't involved but i do know a few who are involved in reconciliation. It's a tricky topic but when you talk to them they're generally relatively level headed about the issues (as much as anyone is).
Do you not see the irony in your statement? The actions that are being pushed by FN groups are to collectively punish good faith private property owners.
So that’s flat out false and you have the balls to state it as fact is wild. First Nations are holding the Crowns feet(not individual people) to the fire over the Crown’s illegal conduct and deprivation of their lands and any benefits they could have had over the decades.
The Crown needs to make a mends and that means to both First Nations who they originally and continually have given the short end of the stick to in many aspects. They also need to correct the issue to those individuals that were sold land that the government had no right to give/sell to others. It’s unfortunate for those individuals but it’s nowhere comparable to the harm and disadvantage experienced by the First Nations and the very real downsides they shouldered for decades while non Indigenous people have made millions worth in value off land they don’t own and had no right to access.
It’s a governmental entity and is distinct in that nature and takes on a more comprehensive role than just that of an individual person. It represents everyday people yes, but it also had a duty to do things by the rule of law and is something they like to champion so hard about yet didn’t walk the walk themselves. Don’t do illegal stuff, or not keep their end of agreements and they wouldn’t have issues. It’s also not the same governance entity or even structure as that of Indigenous nations. Just because it’s representing a group of people doesn’t make it okay to do illegal stuff and not be held accountable for such things.
Like in that line of thinking, if a corporation does something illegal or causes harm to another group, they shouldn’t be held liable because it represents share holders and would mean they make less?
Being a bone fides purchaser doesn’t exclude you from caveat emptor; it’s the duty of property buyers to ensure that title is proper given and there are no other existing claims.
Nemo dat quem non habet. The Government didn’t legally have the right to sell the land to anyone in the first place, so nobody else can legally hold it.
The property owners in this case should have done their due diligence with regards to outstanding claims.
How do home owners go back hundreds of years to do that? The government literally guaranteed the title. What other sources would a homeowner use? Even the nations don't agree on whose property it was.
It's funny how we Canadians look at America and think they're so stupid for electing a president like Donald Trump. If you become a perpetual victim that can never be reconciled ever (what is the end goal here). Don't be surprised when a crazy far right government gets elected because average people get fed up when they can barely afford to get by already as is.
That is true, I was mostly referring to the younger generation who will become the next majority of voters. To include homeowners who are a huge chunk of current voters is a huge influence. In the long term this will hurt FN relations with society.
Yeah, but the angry right wing government just takes the opportunity to rob the country blind and run the economy into the ground. I understand the connection but the outcomes are absolutely idiotic.
2 generations from war and everybody forgets what it can be like when you elect an extremist government. One crazy strong man can kill 30% of the population and leave the the other 70% on brink of starvation.
I was pro Indigenous (and I still am in the sense that I believe it's objectively good for all people to remember their ancestry and find connection with the Earth), but literally since hearing about people losing their homes to this insanity I don't even support reconciliation exactly as I once did.
It's opened my eyes and made me question that some if not many of the First Nations are not acting in good faith, and would perpetuate the same harms done to them. That needs to be named and protected against.
I feel the same way but unfortunately our world runs on greed. Look at the lengths people and corporations go to when avoiding to pay proper taxes in the country they live
/operate in.
You saying these bands would do the same harms done to them? What an insane take this is. This statement alone would seem to signify you probably weren't for what the bands were up to before. Letting them sign up for ancestry.ca or going for a nature walk isn't what it's all about or we should all have registration cards.
Hearing this old, angry, obese colonizer/settler and thinking "yes, this guy is someone I identify with" is kinda sad but that's ok. He sells mortgages. And maybe you do to. Don't forget, he may know mortgages, and mortgage rates and that's all you give him credit for. He doesn't speak for any bands, Govt, NGOs. He's not an economic specialist. He's only those 5 words i described about him earlier.
If you ever think you're one with the bands, just let them be, don't say what's good for them. If you're within the area of the Cowichan, I can apologize on my behalf of some feelings you may be going through and some nervousness. Think of it this way, on a cribbage board, there are 121 peg holes. FN are trying to get 1 or 2 of these holes for themselves. The rest are to the Govt, including the spaces between the holes. You get all of that. Be at rest you still have 99%+.
So what that tells me is you have a foundational misunderstanding of the issue. I always find it odd that people who tend to rant against performative politics get extra bent out of shape when concrete action is taken to address past issues that have compound for many decades of inaction or denial.
You also seem to be directing your frustration towards Indigenous nations when the real issue is around the Crowns actions or inaction regarding treaties or lack there of. Put that frustration where it is actually deserved not some cop out pushed by media or a misinformed society. I also find it hilarious when you suppose First Nations are acting not in good faith. The government (the crown) that represents you has not acted in good faith from day one(hence the issues relevant to today) and I find it very much projection rather than being based in facts.
Right or wrong, since there doesn’t appear to be any effort at sustainability, people are getting less interested in the idea of reconciliation. It’s just more and more money every year. And nothing seems to be any better.
“And nothing seems to be better” that’s an outside opinion and is therefore subject to bias or interpretation which can and often is flawed. As someone who as I say lives in both worlds and has real world experience in this area as an Indigenous person, I can confidently say most everyday people talk out of their behind on things they have no right nor a nuanced understanding to even make a comment on it. Reddit is strife with this but I always like to ensure I have a nuanced understanding hence why I’m even commenting here in hopes to provide a discussion in an often unfriendly environment. All to provide nuance and perspective that others just don’t have and also not just accepting baseless bs or bashing that’s not warranted.
Someone downvoted you without responding which is unfortunate. And that’s great that you want to provide the other side. Always of interest. But a couple of years ago you couldn’t say a bad word about indigenous stuff. You’d get downvoted to oblivion. Now you see more and more comments about it and few downvotes. So I think things are changing. And I think it’s due to the Cowichan decision. And likely the dump on the reserve.
There is a difference between a verifiable nuanced critique and being misinformed and hateful because of a misunderstanding which is often tied to an unwilling to broaden one’s own understanding. I’ve seen much of the latter in my own experience. People are just emboldened to say whatever they feel they want, not be based in facts, nor be willing to defend their position and have a hard discussion that isn’t just reinforcing their own stance. Also taking Reddit as a platform to connect has some value but I wouldn’t take health advice from it. What I mean by that is just because you’ve noticed a change in certain aspects doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a collective change outside Reddit world. And the scientist in me would ask, is Reddit the most credible source to make such deductions from.
Regarding the Cowichan Decision, I find it ironic how people who aren’t lawyers or actively involved in where the issue arise from make such claims or stances and act as if they are the be all end all regarding the topic. It’s weird and egotistical at its foundation. I also find it hypocritical that these folks are all up in arms when a correction to a long-standing issue where the Indigenous nation has been deprived of their rights, lands etc for x1000 longer is at last being corrected. All the time the Indigenous nation has been deprived off its land and it’s benefit non Indigenous have benefited immensely on stuff that wasn’t truly theirs. Like sure it’s unfortunate and a slight inconvenience for these everyday people, but it’s not the Cowichan or any other Indigenous nations fault. That’s why I say if they are mad then direct that at the Crown who did illegal stuff and passed it off to those individuals as if it was all on the up and up when it wasn’t.
How bout the FN also be told to take out their frustration on the Crown as well the? instead of shaming so called “ settlers” ? It needs to
go both ways
That is where the lawsuits stem from as a means to deal with the issues. Let’s be clear anyone who isn’t originally from this land is a settler but just of varying degrees. People get upset when they are told that and the reason is because they like to judge others and use immigrants as a derogatory term when issues arise in the large society. It’s very much a us versus them mentality which is unhelpful and causes more issues than it solved if anything.
Reddit is an echo chamber. Mostly pretty left wing. The mods in a lot of subs are control freaks who ban people and delete comments. Especially Ontario and CanadaPolitics. And Canada to a degree. So I hope people don’t expect to get good information here. It’s for discussion purposes and to see news articles.
I would love to see some debate on here but it’s rare. Mostly people just don’t know how anymore. And don’t want to hear arguments on the other side. I fear for the future. And since this is anonymous you’re right. People say stupid stuff with no fear of repercussions.
The reason I bring up Reddit is just because people say what they want. Lots of it is trolling and rude. But there wasn’t a lot of anti indigenous stuff. Anyone who suggested it got downvoted. Now there is much less of that. I think the Cowichan decision scared people. We’ve been saying there land acknowledgments for years. Now well of a sudden reality is hitting. So it was mostly performative. Or people who said it don’t own land.
The judge was an activist. She went further than even the request of the Cowichan. She made a mess of things. There cannot be two titles on the land. And if they deserve this land then they get compensation only, not the land. Because there’s development on that land that they don’t deserve. The entire BC is unceded. If it’s all handed over to the indigenous where are they going to get the money to live. They get most of it now from taxpayers. Most of what they do now with their land is not sustainable without outside help.
My question to you is why should they not get their land back? Sure as can be that they figure out agreements and work together to solve the day to day issues if they truly wanted to but the title to the land for Cowichan or any Indigeous nation has never wavered, the Crown just did shady things and so why should Indigenous nations be deprived of their land. Why is it alway that Indigenous people are the ones having to adapt and take the short end of the stick even when Rule of Law is on their side?
Money doesn’t carry the same value and cultural importance nor the economic development opportunities for Indigenous Nations as does their land both past, present and into the future. It seems your solution very much favours one party because it’s easiest, not the most correct. I also ask why is it always a race to the bottom, black and white thinking?
Two things can exist and thrive, just both things need to work together, communicate and think outside the status quo. It should never be a this or that style mentality.
The people who lived there are long dead. Along with the people who screwed everything up. Why should the people today benefit and others lose out when it had nothing to do with them. And why should the indigenous get all the development on that land that would never have happened if left to the indigenous. BC can find some undeveloped land and give it to them. Or some money like usual. It’s always only about money. None of them want to give up their trucks and phones and internet to get back to hunting and fishing and living off the land.
The Crown entity still exists, does it not. All the benefit to none Indigenous people still exists even with the Crowns past shady dealings to have the table be weighted for their interests. Your point very much boils down to hey we did shitty things, but I didn’t do it yet I want to keep all of the benefits of it. If any mention of correcting that wrong is ever brought up, all of a sudden it’s a bridge too far and the world’s ending. Also you come across as idiotic when you resort to anecdotal stuff and bring in stereotypes or assumptions. Your stance loses credibility and validity. I’m always open for healthy and respectful discussion but it needs not to resort to name calling, stereotypes, over generalizations or assumptions.
I've said in another post how much better it has been for us F N because of how this Govt has been. I can find meaningful work to support my family. I don't get handouts like someone mentioned the Ontario bands get ($250k). Had it not been for this Govt, i would be enslaved by western people's companies controlling all the work and no opportunity to live comfortably. Many companies i work with starting to get it. We want our land decisions to be respected over stewardship, and get a chance to work and provide for ourselves. This wasn't happening in any big way even 10 years ago. It was a bit, but nothing like it is today. I can start and grow a business.
Yes! Interesting watching the Rustad interview and he speaks highly of Osoyoos band. Many of us use that model to replicate our own economic model and people get mad.
Not that we're here to please any of you, but confused when we try to make our own money we're bad. We want land to make our own money, we're bad, we get handouts, we're bad.
The model from the last 100 years, well that's not happening anymore, we need to go forward somehow. Most of us aren't looking for handouts. It's all very complicated.
Yes. There are a few examples of very successful bands doing great things. Unfortunately that’s not the majority.
Also despite not wanting to “please us” it’s going to be much harder to win these cases with taxpayers not on board. I mean technically you can fight for the land but with your own money.
The issue is the sustainability. But again, the bands seem to get the land and put casinos and weed shops on it. That attracts organized crime. Start small businesses doing healthy things not businesses that add to the problems with addictions and crime.
The sooner we stop telling people to direct their anger to the crown, the sooner we have a chance at real discussions for real solutions. The government is simply current people elected and paid for by current people (including F N since the 60s). Any monetary solutions / damages have already come from and will still need to come from taxpayers. It's a waste of time to direct people to be angry at something that ambiguous.
And there are F N and non that act in bad faith. We shouldn't be deifying anyone by group here.
The thing many are seemingly unwilling to understand is that any agreement between the federal governement (aka the crown)and First Nations is between sovereign entities. The relationship that exists between Indigenous people and the Crown is a distinct one and is perpetual in nature, it’s picked up by the next generation from those before and passed to the generations to come and it’s a relationship that always requires communication, commitment and redress. You can’t have meaningful discussion about how to rectify issues without that very simple understanding.
Also to be clear any “funding” for Indigenous communities comes from our own Trust Funds that have been held hostage by the Crown and in some cases missed used or stolen from by Crown representatives since said relationship began. It doesn’t come from Tax Payers like so many like to frame it to create outrage or create a narrative to support their political stance. Now settlements for Treaty obligations by the Crown being breached does come from the government coffers, it’s the penalty that happens when you don’t follow the agreements made. It follows the principle still used by businesses. If you are late or don’t pay your bill it doesn’t just go away. The original amount plus interest or some fee is required to correct the business relationship. I am perplexed how it seems many don’t understand that. It’s a cost and the point behind it is to correct past behaviour and in the future not be derelict in one’s obligations.
Regarding your last point about those who act in bad faith, I’m not saying their aren’t bad apples in any bunch, what I’m saying is if your own house isn’t in order what gives you the right or feeling of supremacy to then lecture others about the same issues your own entity(government) has yet to magically address. It’s pot calling kettle and just hypocritical at best.
Re funding, um no. The provincial and federal governments fund tens of billions of dollars, every single year, to F N from the general revenues. This does not include other settlements, land transfers, revenue sharing agreements, etc. Yes, for sure, there are the trusts but those funds are small by comparison. Last I saw dispensing them in their entirety wouldn't even come close to 1 year of funding.
Then you don’t understand where a large portion of general revenues originated and continue to come from. And the data you mentioned is not accurate as I have more direct insight to the situation then you would and if you aren’t aware of the basics of the general revenues and Indian Trusts connection then I can with a high certainty say anything from there on is heavily biased and objectively not accurate.
To begin Trusts were set up at treaty times to be a separate form of monetary value for Indigenous nations outside of land holdings of the nations. The Trusts were distinct by nation as we are sovereign entities. Over the decades of mishandling by Crown Representatives either stealing outright, moving things around to obfuscate the theft or using it for funding of canals and other infrastructure without the Indigenous nations consent, nor for the benefit of these nations but rather for non indigenous people or their business industries as easy examples. As a result the ledger became messy and the Crown deliberately withheld access to “OUR” own funds. They also illegal used their “legislation” to make it “illegal” to use our own money for education and a laundry list of other things if access was even possible.
All of which contradicts the promises and guidelines of our distinct relationship outlined during the original treaty deliberations. These trust funds were massive then, exactly why they used them illegally to fund infrastructure for the non Indigenous population and are now exponentially larger if understood through today’s dollars. It was through Crown malfeasance that they were mixed under the General Revenues account categorization as oppose to their original separate and distinct trust account that corresponded to each Indigenous Nation.
You want to know why, the federal government truthfully can’t delineate these funds in their entirety, it’s because they are too large of value that the very idea of doing so as it is not the Crowns money would in reality bankrupt the Crown entity ten times over because they still subvertly use the funds for other things that aren’t for our nations. It’s why calling it General Revenues insinuate the money is 100% the Crown governments alone but it’s not and never was from the start. Mixing illegal funds with some legitimate revenue from Tax Payers is their attempt to wash the money clean of where it was derived from and make it hard to keep track.
That’s the blunt reality and the misinformation or downright lying regarding this fundamental fact is why basic understanding of this is so rare.
Agree the understanding and misinformation is widespread, so help get us up to speed given your expertise. I have absolutely no doubt that the governments play funny accounting all over the place. If there is a site your could refer us to, that would be helpful. In the alternative, how much were the total trusts back at initiation, what is the balance today, and how much do you suggest has been misapproriated? Also, on the general revenues budget, what line items are from indigenous sources?
And sorry, as I read thru your reference posted (TY again) can you clarify "funding"? Are you suggesting NO tax dollars fund F N or just that certain line items aren't or ?
He is right on point! We fund a group of people in this country to scam money from all the other people of this country. A massive recurring c¡rclejėrk.
Not just this country, the U.S. as well. Traditional lands were split by the border and since there have been courts granting rights in this country to extend to the U.S. as part of traditional hunting grounds.
The Vancouver land claim is not settled as they are now battling each other with regards to traditional neighbouring borders and vying for a piece of the claim.
In my opinion, why didn't past governments take a route something that mixes NZ and Australia approach.
Since we assumed all the debt owed by the UK government and the Crown with independence. Why not remove Indian Act, pay up all the financial owing to all the bands, to settle the debt and land payment issue. And do something like Australia, by giving traditional land use rights to the natives(no land title, land use rights for hunting, fishing, and traditional ceremonies etc) and have more homogenous and one singular nation with bands and nations having their own municipality.
Thanks past governments and UK and the crown for this perpetual problem for the future generations because you guys like status quo so much...
There are two primary lands: government and unceded. I believe it was King George V who initiated this. Private lands are rider ownership on government lands and pay taxes and without a receiving buyer, reverts the governmentownership. Now unneeded lands will have primary ownership and will seek taxes. Worse: government works for the welfare of Canadians while unceded lands do not.
They need to do what us Jewish people did about the Germans. Forgive and move on. Jews have built themselves back up since 1945 to be the most powerful people on the planet. And we didn't do it by dwelling on the past and feeling sorry for ourselves asking for handouts from the German or Swiss governments.
What should be considered is that First Nations should have a right to collect a fee on the transfer of land. Why the province can collect a land transfer tax, but the first nations cannot seems strange. And that's a gut reaction, I haven't seen discussed.
They I'd when I went to school. Fort Smith, Hay River NWT. Actually Mark Carneys Dad was principle at Smith while was there. Visiting a Rez gives you street cred, living on one does t?
People keep saying in RE market that I’ll improve but it won’t especially due to this. I saw a brand new home sold for 1.6 wherein it was listed 1.9 last year due to these complications
Let's say the people who sold you the land didn't have clear title but sold it to you anyhow. No fault of yours. Then the courts you set and created affirmed this. I suspect you as the original land owner would like clear and fair compensation. However you choose not to sell maybe based on damage done, etc. Now some caucasion guy out of nowhere rants on disregarding the rule of law. Really?!
This is only my opinion Well this is all a result of the folly White Christian Colonialism; if you would have practiced foresight and practiced understanding & following the true teachings of Jesus Christ instead of being so greedy most likely this would have been avoided as these tradition indigenous cultural zones would have been preserved and undeveloped.
This isn't a Canada wide issue, and millions of Canadians hate, literally hate Ind igenous people anyway.
Reconciliation matters, but not like that! Yeah, ok.
Keep fighting just like every other government has fought for the last 50 years, and keep losing just like they kept losing. Negotiations are better than litigation.
Buddy is just spewing random numbers and expects people will believe it.
How about you back your comments with sources? You can’t even prove that Jewish aren’t being targeted across Canada when there’s been countless articles stating how much antisemitism has been on the rise.
Do you believe there are rac ist people in Canada? What percentage of Canadians do you think it is?
I believe it's around 10%.
See, there's no single source for something like this. There's no survey where Canadians say, "Yes, I'm ra cist." Most acist people won't even admit it to themselves. "I have a nat ive friend." Is almost an admission.
When a healthcare worker chooses to give substandard care to a person because of their ethnicity, is that rac ism?
When police choose to arrest a person more frequently due to their ethnicity, is that rac ism?
What happens is you look to surveys from healthcare, prison, social services, politics, social media, and personal interactions from myself and others of many ethnicities and you can infer from all of that an estimated number of Canadians who are genuinely rac ist towards Indi genous people.
The small, almost dead, former mining/logging town a few minutes from me is openly raci st almost completely. Hundreds of people, some openly saying things people only say online, like "we should restart reside ntial schools", or "finish the job if they don't think they were conquered."
Then you have the CRD where you can check a box and give your taxes to local bands.
Yes it is a Canada wide issue, also thanks for admitting it is an issue.
No, Canadians do not hate Indigenous people, in 2023 there were 70 police-reported hate crime incidents targeting First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit people in Canada. Based on this we can say generally Canadians do not hate first nations, but things will change if this continues.
Reconciliation definitely doesn’t matter at all. Its a never ending cycle. It doesn’t matter how much money or land is given, you will continue to ask for more. How much needs to be given up to reconcile? When will the payments end? When do the special privileges end? Can you put a dollar amount on how much is needed for First Nations to be reconciled with?
He's talking about land claims. This isn't a Canada wide issue..
Hate crime statistics are not a reliable indicator. They show Jewish people as the most affected, but I'd bet you a crisp $20, that many/most Christians in Canada would greatly disagree. Hate crimes reported by Indig enous people don't ever amount to anything, that's why they don't bother reporting them. Just like Indigen ous people are afraid of going to the hospital, but that's not reported clearly either.
3 men hunted down 2 indig people and killed them, and that wasn't record as a hate crime.
Things are reconciled when people aren't less than based on rates of things I shared.
The payments aren't recon ciliation or reparations, they an accident as a result of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution, the Indian Act and The Supreme Court case Guerin.
That was horrendous. Absolutely no excuse for that bs. Especially when the dummies burned indigenous churches as well. And as you say it was a hoax - unintended or not.
That's why I said, most/many. Not all. The most targeted for hate are indig. Stats don't show events they show reports. Indig ppl so t report hate crimes, nothing is done about them so it's a waste of time.
Is there evidence that their ethnicity motivated the crime? Every time a crime is committed by one race against another race does not automatically mean that a crime was committed by one race against another race due to racial hatred.
It's not all Canadians, something like 14 million Canadians didn't pay federal income tax last year. 5 million live below the poverty line. 60% of FNs people live off reserve, and many on reserve pay taxes as well.
Nobody gets a veto. If BC makes it a de facto veto that's not a veto, because there are a ton of projects that moved on even with objections. Like tmx and site c. Yeah, uncle Tom's dock didn't get approved, but that means more negotiations have to happen to resolve the issues.
Everyone pays taxes btw income tax isnt the only source of revenue for the government. Status Indians however generally do not pay the Goods and Services Tax (GST) or Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), or provincial sales tax (PST), on goods and services if the transaction has sufficient "connecting factors" to a reserve.
Privilege is going to a hospital and not wondering if you'll get worse care because of your ethnicity. Privilege is not hiding your ethnicity when you go to a hospital for the birth of your child so they don't call social services. Privilege is when you don't hide who you are when you call to rent an apartment.
Over 60% of status live off reserve. Lots on res pay fed tax because they work off. Ontario is odd because it's all tax, but in BC you can get PST off, legally even on reserve. Napkin math makes it around 100-150k status who don't pay federal tax, and people have to travel for all kinds of things that aren't tax exempt.
He's talking about historic wrongs commited again a certain group of people. But since you're part of the privileged you wouldn't know anything about that.
There's a bunch of investment made with FNs, like Kitimat LNG, Senakw and Jericho. Forestry, mining have slow downs, but also great investments and progress. I can't calculate scared away investment, but dozens of 15+ million dollar projects happend last year. That's what BC calls a large project and you can look them up.
In the prairies there's a coalition of 70+ bands who fully support and invest in O&G. In Ontario several bands are heavy into mining.
Most is way easier to calculate then a dollar figure of imaginary investment. It's like that forced hotel sale that was "scared away" by the Cowichan Decision. 30 seconds of searching and reading and you find out it's a forced sale and the property was a bad investment and it did in fact sell. That story got so much traction, but it's all fake.
All of these investments are just the indigenous hiring outside consultants, contractors and others to do the work. They’re not doing the world themselves. They are just exploiting the resources under the land that they wouldn’t know about without people telling them. And since they aren’t building businesses or going to school or getting the expertise once the resources are gone the flow of money is gone. So again - not sustainable.
If millions of Canadians disliked Indigenous folks the constitution would never have entrenched their rights, Reconciliation would never have started, billions of dollars in settlements would have never been reached.
Look around the world. People have an immense ability to be vile. Canada has tried very hard to show the world that an alternative is possible. No other society on this Earth works as hard as ours to make amends and to uplift one another.
From an early age going to school in Vancouver we were taught a very romanticized perspective about Indigenous peoples. It was that narrative on which Reconciliation was then built.
Much of that narrative has come crashing down to reality over the last 5 months for myself and many like me.
What we have learned from that is, as with all things, there are limits, even to Reconciliation.
We can only litigate so much of the past before innocent people in the present begin to be aggrieved by it. That red line, as is now increasingly clear, is the existence of our current society, and property that is currently owned.
We’re not going to reconcile Canada out of existence. We’re not going to reconcile our private properties and wealth away.
The government can negotiate, Nations can litigate. However there is an inherent limit to all this which is our democracy. There’s only so much that can be done before the people get fed up, say enough is enough, and change the laws and the system.
Ron Butler is right. Land claims are immensely damaging to Reconciliation.
My best guess is 3-5 million Canadians hate Indig people, as well as some combination of other ethnic groups.
There wasn't a referendum, it's not like Canadians chose to enshrine Aborig inal Rights in the Constitution, it was a last minute change.
Germans are still paying reparations to Jewish people, I'd say they try way harder as a people to make amends and uplift each other.
Recon ciliation isn't built on school tales, it's built on not wanting to get sued. This altruistic Canada that you are describing doesn't exist, and has never existed.
If you don't think reco nciliation is worthwhile since the last 5 months you're proving my point about it not being real.
This is not litigation of the past. There are ongoing broken laws, the fact that the first one happens years ago doesn't matter because Canada made it illegal for FNs to sue for 70 years, another courts said we have to at least listen.
Canada won't cease to exist, fee-simple land ownership won't disappear.
Politicians and their corporate donors run Canada. The people don't matter to them.
I was really hoping he was going to have a decent argument, but he didn't deliver. If the indigenous have a true legal claim to these lands, then it's no argument to say that pursuing that claim and having it turn Canadians against the indigenous is a reason not to pursue it. But that's what he claims. That's silly
Yea he hinted at that I think I heard. Which is exactly the problem. We can't just have property rights evaporate. But he didn't elaborate or even defend the claim. And again if the indigenous have legal land claims you can't just say they shouldn't pursue them because it'll annoy Canadians. At least give us a good legal defense of why their claims shouldn't be upheld, not that it frustrates your emotions.
What’s funny about this whole thing is .. this is exactly what happened to the First Nations people in the first place. They owned the property and it was taken through a verbal agreement (Douglas treaties) where premier Douglas just told the legislature that he bought the land through a hand shake agreement.
Everyone is losing their minds and calling it insanity - cause it is. But the insanity is on both sides of the equation.
Let’s travel back a little bit in history and reconcile with the nations who battled and competed for their lives, against other tribes. Your ideology will not allow you to comprehend the history of the conquered or victory of the period. Let this continue and observe the retaliation against the First Nations
Ancestry traces back to 1400 trois rivieres. Not reciting my regret just moving forward in a modern ,fee simple- ton democracy where everyone has to submit to… well not everyone
Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia … indigenous people were never conquered. They sold their rights, and got ripped off. It’s funny how inter generational wealth can happen through British (like the monarchy, the dukes etc) yet when it comes to First Nations people just think they’re lazy and want hand outs.
I mean that the indigenous people had premier Douglas make false claims that they sold their land for what ever prices and then it was just taken over time. And now that it’s happening to other people they’re in a panic. This is the same thing they went through.
The government used to do crazy stuff. Sometimes they’d take their kids away if they didn’t sign their land away. Or they’d force them into mental hospitals for being incompetent then they’d seize their property.
My actual sisters were taken away because my dad is indigenous. It was called the 60s scoop. The cops showed up at the hospital and told my dad if he didn’t give my sister to them they’d charge him with child abuse. So yes the government did crazy stuff. I lived it. They gave my sisters 100k each as compensation.
Here is a radio segment of someone I know, whose aunt was taken for not signing away her land.
I don’t think anyone is denying the 60s scoop. It’s just that people are making every single aspect some horrible event and exaggerating things in order to get sympathy and more money.
It was pretty bad. I grew up in the streets and saw a lot of it first hand. One of my friends brother was picked up by the cops and taken out of town in -40 and kicked out of the cop car. They took his shoes. He froze to death trying to walk home. Sadly the event wasn’t isolated as it was a common occurrence in the late 90s.
Yup they were called the starlight tours of Saskatoon. Either way this is how we end up with these horrible stories. I am sure some are exaggerated. But my sisters got barely anything for being scooped. If the cops took my kids away and gave me $100k as compensation 2 decades later I’d think it was a joke. My dad never got anything though. I get free counseling.
I dont agree with the yoinking of private land. It is unfair and destabilizing.
That said, Ron is incorrect when he says buyers need to be able to buy to own permanently. It is a flaw of our system that we buy land and then own it until the sun explodes. It impoverishes future generations compared to a system where land is leased or heavily taxed. A system where people only buy land for a time while they wish to use it would actually improve the economy. Singapore sorta does this. Many jurisdictions have higher taxes on land than we do and a better economic trajectory.
edit: hordes of economists, nobel laureates, Einstein, Tolstoy, Churchill, even right wing economist Friedman and loads more said what I'm saying. I welcome the downvotes, but please explain why anything I said is incorrect. Link some reading if you can.
We can build more urban centers - but that would be expanding colonialism and is "bad". As is the govt of BC would give the land to the natives before making more urban centers due to the ideological nature of Eby.
Also anyone here who owns property benefits from densification. Which is all politicians. So they vote against expansion.
The BC government shouldn't build more urban centers. They should sell more land and relax the regulations so that private citizens start corporations to build more urban centers.
We managed to build new urban centers 100 years ago but can't today?
We could turn Squamish for example into a million person city. Rivers as big as the Squamish in Europe have lots of cities on them. Here it's mostly undeveloped. Government interference makes construction and living costs prohibitive if it's allowed at all.
Canada is big, the amount of land in and around cities isn't. When investors capture that land, people are fcked because they can't just go build their own cities.
Private land ownership is beyond stupid. Even Adam Smith understood that 250 years ago.
It's like you missed my first sentence. I don't agree with the yoinking of private land. The de soto criticism would make sense if I supported the yoinking of private land.
What do you think de soto is saying that goes against anything I've said?
Well I thought where you were headed, but easily could be wrong, is that while you didn't think existing title should be removed, over time that you were suggesting that land essentially be used (ie rented) for periods of time vs. owned. If that were the case, the uncertainty that comes with that is where I think de Soto would struggle. But maybe I misunderstood.
over time that you were suggesting that land essentially be used (ie rented) for periods of time vs. owned
*Correct basically correct! I think ownership is fine as long as they pay a high tax.
the uncertainty that comes with that
50% agree!
I totally agree that uncertainty is bad, and that if I suggest something to you that you don't understand, that is very uncertain.
I totally disagree that a system where we rent or lease or own with high tax is necessarily more uncertain. I don't know where you get that it has to be uncertain. Do you think a stable/certain system like that is possible?
You didn't misunderstand me, except that you seem to think I want uncertainty. I don't.
Then maybe it just comes down to our differing opinions on whether you can rent or own with the exact same anticipated certainty. I might even agree with you if considering the question in isolation. But we're not, it's relative to other economic environments and opportunity costs. If I can start my business and invest where I know I own the land and control my fate vs renting and my terms changing, I'm going with the former. And in that world, who funds necessary land capital improvements?
Sounds like you are open to the possibility of a stable system where owners pay higher taxes on land value, which is great, but that you think it doesn't matter anyway because then people wouldn't improve their land.
This is LVTs 101. Tl;dr improvements are not taxed, only land value is.
People will develop more under such a system, not less.
If people don’t own the land and the homes and businesses on it they won’t invest and maintain those investments. You’re likely suggesting socialism. Which is always suggested by people who don’t own land.
I'm not suggesting socialism at all! People can own land same as they do now, only pay a higher tax rate on the land value (while workers can pay a little less in income tax). If anything, I'm more of a capitalist than you.
Under my system, we wouldn't charge property tax on structures AND we'd see lower land prices and so development would skyrocket.
This has nothing to do with who I am or my economic situation. I have it pretty good. I'm just talking about what system is best.
There is absolutely no way you are more of a capitalist than I am. Sorry. That’s kind of a crazy statement since you don’t know me. The idea about paying property taxes is that we need that money for municipal services. Putting an unfair responsibility for what income taxes pay on land owners would only be suggested by someone who doesn’t own land.
Why would structures not pay property tax? They use services too?
It’s a little arrogant to think you’ve thought up some ideal situation (which of course would work best for you) and think other smarter people have not thought of alternates to what we do now.
And the development is what drives rhe infrastructure costs needed to be paid by those taxes. If I have a street of quad plexes in the air vs single family homes on the same lots I need a heck of a lot wider sewer main. Or how about a car wash on a commercial lot vs an office. It's nonsensical as a first choice method.
Let's imagine the quad plex is 2-3 times the property value of the single family home. The quad plex's wider pipe and garbage collection etc. doesn't cost the municipality 2-3 times as much as the SFH because you get economies of scale. The garbage is all in one place, for example.
The De Soto book didn't answer my next question, which was to ask you if you think property taxes should be based on the cost of municipal services in an ideal world. I'm so far 0/2 finding a coherent person who answers the questions I ask so I won't hold my breath for an answer.
There are economies of scale for sure, but it still costs more, could be a lot more with an egregious example like a tower. Your direct question is hard to answer because every fed, province/state and local muni covers different services. And what isn't done at the top level cascades down for someone to do it below (along with the cost). I don't think any system is perfect, but in general I think the best systems 1) better link use with cost and 2) share costs where scale helps. I also think local income or sales taxes don't make sense so property taxes are the avenue to fill that lowest bucket.
Part of the issue here is we have a pretty small cost when wealth transfers so land wealth can really be hoarded over generations. If there was more tax incented recycling back into the system I think that would help keep prices lower, but need to think about that more.
I totally agree cost resulting from an individual should ideally be borne by that individual, which is why I have the position I do.
Imagine I own a huge lot in downtown Vancouver which I fence off and do whatever I want on. I sell it decades later for a huge profit.
There is a cost to society of me screwing around like that. It could be a park or housing supply or businesses or whatever. Housing, for example, would mean people in Vancouver on average pay lower rents and prices. It would mean labour becomes a little cheaper, as workers can more easily live there.
It sounds like your ideal system would tax the crap out of a landowner like myself.
Well someone has to pay for the infrastructure beyond your four corners to serve what you have decided to build. I think that should be you vs me or others. I'm not sure where the money is coming from in your model? In general I think the lower any taxes the better.
It already is based on municipal costs. But what if you have one person in a huge house vs 20 in a small one. The small house uses a lot more resources like the roads and transit. How do you resolve that. You want the large house to pay even more?
No, not at all. I'm supporting your argument for why it matters WHAT is built on the same parcel of land when it comes to taxes. Of course there will be variances of actual vs planned in terms of infrastructure used.
No it isn't, it's based on property value relative to the property value of others.
But what if you have one person in a huge house vs 20 in a small one.
I thought you were arguing that current property taxes were good and matched costs/usage? This scenario is a great thought experiment and shows why that doesn't work currently. I'd love to know how you'd resolve that.
I think about costs to society differently, and my list of costs for these people has a different item on it than you, I think. I'll explain:
Imagine I own a huge lot in downtown Vancouver. I fence it off and do whatever I want on it for decades, then sell it for a huge profit. In my view, I've created a huge cost to society. If I didn't screw around like that, society would have housing or workplaces or a park or something there that benefits them a whole lot more than my dungeon. In this scenario: Am I creating a cost to society in your view?
Everyone has to walk around my fence, bus further etc. because I'm in the middle of downtown.
You want the large house to pay even more?
What are the land values? Is the large house on a sprawling lot? Then yes.
The rate is based on municipal needs divided up among property owners.
Who’s going to own and maintain the park for all to use? That fenced up property is costing the owner each year. I can’t imagine someone paying for years and not getting any revenue from it hoping the value will increase more than putting that money in the stock market with no effort. That property still has to be maintained. They can’t let the weeds grow or allow graffiti to stay. Or let the fences rot.
A house in a large lot costs the municipality peanuts. We need that lot for housing but that’s another issue. You also need to incentive developers to buy that lot and make it into apartments. But they will likely be rentals so doesn’t help people who want to own.
They’re a Georgist or whatever it’s called. They think that land is supposed to be equally shared by everyone so when people own said land they can slap an arbitrary tax amount on what it would be worth at its highest usable value. The tax from that would offset the income tax of someone actually being productive. I like the premise but I don’t think it would work in real life because the value of land is changing all the time and who determines the maximum amount of value it could be. Further more I’d just move as far away as possible to get away from paying any income tax on it.
Lots and lots of holes in the idea, sounds good on paper but what actually determines the price of the taxes.
Would I be punished because I have a house instead of a triplex? It’s not well thought out and the taxes derived from it would not off set income tax… even tho I wish they would.
Thanks for the explanation. He’s not able to articulate it very well. I think a lot of people on here see some idealistic perfect option and wonder why we aren’t doing it. Like socialism. Looks good on paper. Doesn’t work well in reality.
And agreed that it’s likely too complicated. How would you budget if you have to reduce the taxes on the houses if there was a real estate crash. And how do you determine what’s more productive. It would be hard to measure and I’m sure lots of people would contest it. Our system isn’t great but it’s hard to think of a better one.
[you] think you’ve thought up some ideal situation
Not at all! It all comes from economists and history, including the history of BC property taxes! We used to (more or less) do what I'm talking about here. Have you ever thought about why we separate land and structure on our property tax assessments? We actually used to have a more modern, economically productive system, at least according to economists and myself. I'd love to know if you'd ever heard anything about this or if it is new info. Vancouver had land value taxes.
There is absolutely no way you are more of a capitalist than I am
I think the profit motive should go to productive work and capital. You think the profit motive should go to that, but not entirely. You think some profit motive should be reserved for those who buy land at a lower price and sell it later at a higher price without doing productive work.
That's why I said I'm more of a capitalist. In my mind, capitalism is about profit motive getting stuff done, and not rewarding speculation, for example. I'd love to know if you agree with my characterization of your position. Do you think it is important that people can buy land, hold it, and sell it later for more?
BC is a complete disaster. I would never want anything that’s done in BC to be replicated across Canada. It’s identity politics and activists. And lots and lots of fighting.
Real estate is not an efficient use of money. Especially flippers. They’re a scourge. So I agree that we should not be encouraging that sort of investment. But the politicians - lots in BC - have investments in real estate. They aren’t going to screw themselves. Also we need landlords. Not everyone can afford a house. I also don’t think it’s fair for home owners to shoulder the weight of the cost and let renters off the hook.
Real estate is not an efficient use of money. Especially flippers. They’re a scourge. So I agree that we should not be encouraging that sort of investment.
Well I told you my most efficient way of doing that. Supported by loads of economists.
What's your best way to end flippers or hoarding land or whatever? Personally I prefer a flipper to straight up hoarder. At least the flipper painted the house or whatever.
Someone else on here explained the issues with your concept better than I can. So have a look at what he said.
As for hoarders, who is a hoarder to you. Most landlords only have one or two rentals. The big landlords have rental apartment buildings. People can’t all be owners.
This is what I’ve been banging on about since this began. Millions of Canadians occupy the middle of the political spectrum, are not racist, and would like to see improved opportunities and outcomes for First Nations.
The quickest way to turn those millions irrefutably and irreparably against FN in Canada is to endanger their property rights and values. There will be no coming back from this if FN continue down this path.
when has a court taken a working class family’s home title and given it to any first nations group?
I don’t think any FN wants to take anyone’s land away.
It’s the activist judges, politicians most of whom are white virtue signallers or claim to be “Metis” (a loaded political term in FN politics) pushing for this.
What is this "activist judges" BS? That is some Trump level right wing brainwashing right there.
You think people go through law school, work in law for many years and finally after all that get raised to the bench to take away white peoples homes to give them to brown people?
What kind of special stupidity eats this garbage up?
I know this wasn't your intent but everyone acts like FN people all are in the same group and haves the same beliefs!
Yah, my good friend in college who was indigenous was none too kind about the conditions and choices of his fellow comrades from his band.
Super smart guy. Took all the advantages afforded to him life from it, got a great education in electrical engineering and is killing it personally, but I've yet to meet anyone more critical of it all and he came from within. Which I suppose is what fuels some of that passion.
I have the exact same experience. The educated FN see what they are doing.
it seems to go both ways?
What do you mean
They are who their leaders are. That's who represents them. For better or worse..
It's true. With most infrastructure projects many FN groups will approve of the project, only for a loud minority to protest and stall the projects. If the elected band councils vote to approve a project, the unelected tribal elders say it's illegitimate. The problem is the system of reconciliation is so open to being exploited in this way, that it must be reformed. And prior, more people on the centre were okay with the concept, but these land claims have damaged the reconciliation reputation, I'm afraid.
I totally agree. I think they’re kind of overstepping even with their demands if you see what they asked with the truth and reconciliation council, but when I complain to people, I’m told that’s how you negotiate.
I think people have a point with saying that. But if I were on the FN side of this issue I would try and be more tactical about it. It's a tough situation between all the media manipulation, various politicians with their own interests in mind etc. Either way, I find the current situation untenable. Though I don't expect it to be resolved anytime soon.
Honestly, my uninformed take is that 95% or more of FN people have absolutely no involvement in the process. There are decent chiefs and then there are shitty ones who know that no matter what they do it’ll get lost in the whole circus tent.
Anecdotally, I have friends and family that are FN. Most aren't involved but i do know a few who are involved in reconciliation. It's a tricky topic but when you talk to them they're generally relatively level headed about the issues (as much as anyone is).
Basically advocating for communal punishment for FN if any advocate for their rights.
Do you not see the irony in your statement? The actions that are being pushed by FN groups are to collectively punish good faith private property owners.
The irony is that all non First Nations people must be punished and forever associate their rich history with guilt and “genocide”.
So that’s flat out false and you have the balls to state it as fact is wild. First Nations are holding the Crowns feet(not individual people) to the fire over the Crown’s illegal conduct and deprivation of their lands and any benefits they could have had over the decades.
The Crown needs to make a mends and that means to both First Nations who they originally and continually have given the short end of the stick to in many aspects. They also need to correct the issue to those individuals that were sold land that the government had no right to give/sell to others. It’s unfortunate for those individuals but it’s nowhere comparable to the harm and disadvantage experienced by the First Nations and the very real downsides they shouldered for decades while non Indigenous people have made millions worth in value off land they don’t own and had no right to access.
The Crown is just a large group of individuals. The collective group of individuals would still need to be the group to remedy it.
It’s a governmental entity and is distinct in that nature and takes on a more comprehensive role than just that of an individual person. It represents everyday people yes, but it also had a duty to do things by the rule of law and is something they like to champion so hard about yet didn’t walk the walk themselves. Don’t do illegal stuff, or not keep their end of agreements and they wouldn’t have issues. It’s also not the same governance entity or even structure as that of Indigenous nations. Just because it’s representing a group of people doesn’t make it okay to do illegal stuff and not be held accountable for such things.
Like in that line of thinking, if a corporation does something illegal or causes harm to another group, they shouldn’t be held liable because it represents share holders and would mean they make less?
Being a bone fides purchaser doesn’t exclude you from caveat emptor; it’s the duty of property buyers to ensure that title is proper given and there are no other existing claims.
Nemo dat quem non habet. The Government didn’t legally have the right to sell the land to anyone in the first place, so nobody else can legally hold it.
The property owners in this case should have done their due diligence with regards to outstanding claims.
How do home owners go back hundreds of years to do that? The government literally guaranteed the title. What other sources would a homeowner use? Even the nations don't agree on whose property it was.
You're peddling absurd Reconciliation Industry nonsense.
The land was legally sold, the Fee Simple titles are valid.
The land claim arose via litigation 150 years after the land was conveyed in Fee Simple.
Oooh you added two misspelled quotes in Latin; you must know what you're talking about! /s. Learn to spell next time you want to get pretentious.
Literally this!
Ahhh, the old abusers mantra."why are you making me do this to you?" A classic
Well said.
My kids want free schooling and no taxes. Most of these people piss away all the opportunities they have and the chiefs get richer.
[removed]
It's funny how we Canadians look at America and think they're so stupid for electing a president like Donald Trump. If you become a perpetual victim that can never be reconciled ever (what is the end goal here). Don't be surprised when a crazy far right government gets elected because average people get fed up when they can barely afford to get by already as is.
''because average people get fed up when they can barely afford to get by already as is.''
And not only that, but when they get expropriated what they spent 25 years paying off.
That is true, I was mostly referring to the younger generation who will become the next majority of voters. To include homeowners who are a huge chunk of current voters is a huge influence. In the long term this will hurt FN relations with society.
Yeah, but the angry right wing government just takes the opportunity to rob the country blind and run the economy into the ground. I understand the connection but the outcomes are absolutely idiotic.
2 generations from war and everybody forgets what it can be like when you elect an extremist government. One crazy strong man can kill 30% of the population and leave the the other 70% on brink of starvation.
To be fair, I personally hate both parties. They've both failed Canada.
American republicans and Canadian “MAGA” conservatives themselves rely on self victimization to justify why they should be in power.
Not only is he right, but it's already begun.
I was pro Indigenous (and I still am in the sense that I believe it's objectively good for all people to remember their ancestry and find connection with the Earth), but literally since hearing about people losing their homes to this insanity I don't even support reconciliation exactly as I once did.
It's opened my eyes and made me question that some if not many of the First Nations are not acting in good faith, and would perpetuate the same harms done to them. That needs to be named and protected against.
I feel the same way but unfortunately our world runs on greed. Look at the lengths people and corporations go to when avoiding to pay proper taxes in the country they live /operate in.
You saying these bands would do the same harms done to them? What an insane take this is. This statement alone would seem to signify you probably weren't for what the bands were up to before. Letting them sign up for ancestry.ca or going for a nature walk isn't what it's all about or we should all have registration cards.
Hearing this old, angry, obese colonizer/settler and thinking "yes, this guy is someone I identify with" is kinda sad but that's ok. He sells mortgages. And maybe you do to. Don't forget, he may know mortgages, and mortgage rates and that's all you give him credit for. He doesn't speak for any bands, Govt, NGOs. He's not an economic specialist. He's only those 5 words i described about him earlier.
If you ever think you're one with the bands, just let them be, don't say what's good for them. If you're within the area of the Cowichan, I can apologize on my behalf of some feelings you may be going through and some nervousness. Think of it this way, on a cribbage board, there are 121 peg holes. FN are trying to get 1 or 2 of these holes for themselves. The rest are to the Govt, including the spaces between the holes. You get all of that. Be at rest you still have 99%+.
So your just a racist
No. Where did you imagine that from? Maybe try reading that again.
Who has lost their home. Please name names
So what that tells me is you have a foundational misunderstanding of the issue. I always find it odd that people who tend to rant against performative politics get extra bent out of shape when concrete action is taken to address past issues that have compound for many decades of inaction or denial.
You also seem to be directing your frustration towards Indigenous nations when the real issue is around the Crowns actions or inaction regarding treaties or lack there of. Put that frustration where it is actually deserved not some cop out pushed by media or a misinformed society. I also find it hilarious when you suppose First Nations are acting not in good faith. The government (the crown) that represents you has not acted in good faith from day one(hence the issues relevant to today) and I find it very much projection rather than being based in facts.
Right or wrong, since there doesn’t appear to be any effort at sustainability, people are getting less interested in the idea of reconciliation. It’s just more and more money every year. And nothing seems to be any better.
“And nothing seems to be better” that’s an outside opinion and is therefore subject to bias or interpretation which can and often is flawed. As someone who as I say lives in both worlds and has real world experience in this area as an Indigenous person, I can confidently say most everyday people talk out of their behind on things they have no right nor a nuanced understanding to even make a comment on it. Reddit is strife with this but I always like to ensure I have a nuanced understanding hence why I’m even commenting here in hopes to provide a discussion in an often unfriendly environment. All to provide nuance and perspective that others just don’t have and also not just accepting baseless bs or bashing that’s not warranted.
Someone downvoted you without responding which is unfortunate. And that’s great that you want to provide the other side. Always of interest. But a couple of years ago you couldn’t say a bad word about indigenous stuff. You’d get downvoted to oblivion. Now you see more and more comments about it and few downvotes. So I think things are changing. And I think it’s due to the Cowichan decision. And likely the dump on the reserve.
100%
There is a difference between a verifiable nuanced critique and being misinformed and hateful because of a misunderstanding which is often tied to an unwilling to broaden one’s own understanding. I’ve seen much of the latter in my own experience. People are just emboldened to say whatever they feel they want, not be based in facts, nor be willing to defend their position and have a hard discussion that isn’t just reinforcing their own stance. Also taking Reddit as a platform to connect has some value but I wouldn’t take health advice from it. What I mean by that is just because you’ve noticed a change in certain aspects doesn’t necessarily mean that’s a collective change outside Reddit world. And the scientist in me would ask, is Reddit the most credible source to make such deductions from.
Regarding the Cowichan Decision, I find it ironic how people who aren’t lawyers or actively involved in where the issue arise from make such claims or stances and act as if they are the be all end all regarding the topic. It’s weird and egotistical at its foundation. I also find it hypocritical that these folks are all up in arms when a correction to a long-standing issue where the Indigenous nation has been deprived of their rights, lands etc for x1000 longer is at last being corrected. All the time the Indigenous nation has been deprived off its land and it’s benefit non Indigenous have benefited immensely on stuff that wasn’t truly theirs. Like sure it’s unfortunate and a slight inconvenience for these everyday people, but it’s not the Cowichan or any other Indigenous nations fault. That’s why I say if they are mad then direct that at the Crown who did illegal stuff and passed it off to those individuals as if it was all on the up and up when it wasn’t.
How bout the FN also be told to take out their frustration on the Crown as well the? instead of shaming so called “ settlers” ? It needs to go both ways
That is where the lawsuits stem from as a means to deal with the issues. Let’s be clear anyone who isn’t originally from this land is a settler but just of varying degrees. People get upset when they are told that and the reason is because they like to judge others and use immigrants as a derogatory term when issues arise in the large society. It’s very much a us versus them mentality which is unhelpful and causes more issues than it solved if anything.
Reddit is an echo chamber. Mostly pretty left wing. The mods in a lot of subs are control freaks who ban people and delete comments. Especially Ontario and CanadaPolitics. And Canada to a degree. So I hope people don’t expect to get good information here. It’s for discussion purposes and to see news articles.
I would love to see some debate on here but it’s rare. Mostly people just don’t know how anymore. And don’t want to hear arguments on the other side. I fear for the future. And since this is anonymous you’re right. People say stupid stuff with no fear of repercussions.
The reason I bring up Reddit is just because people say what they want. Lots of it is trolling and rude. But there wasn’t a lot of anti indigenous stuff. Anyone who suggested it got downvoted. Now there is much less of that. I think the Cowichan decision scared people. We’ve been saying there land acknowledgments for years. Now well of a sudden reality is hitting. So it was mostly performative. Or people who said it don’t own land.
The judge was an activist. She went further than even the request of the Cowichan. She made a mess of things. There cannot be two titles on the land. And if they deserve this land then they get compensation only, not the land. Because there’s development on that land that they don’t deserve. The entire BC is unceded. If it’s all handed over to the indigenous where are they going to get the money to live. They get most of it now from taxpayers. Most of what they do now with their land is not sustainable without outside help.
My question to you is why should they not get their land back? Sure as can be that they figure out agreements and work together to solve the day to day issues if they truly wanted to but the title to the land for Cowichan or any Indigeous nation has never wavered, the Crown just did shady things and so why should Indigenous nations be deprived of their land. Why is it alway that Indigenous people are the ones having to adapt and take the short end of the stick even when Rule of Law is on their side?
Money doesn’t carry the same value and cultural importance nor the economic development opportunities for Indigenous Nations as does their land both past, present and into the future. It seems your solution very much favours one party because it’s easiest, not the most correct. I also ask why is it always a race to the bottom, black and white thinking?
Two things can exist and thrive, just both things need to work together, communicate and think outside the status quo. It should never be a this or that style mentality.
The people who lived there are long dead. Along with the people who screwed everything up. Why should the people today benefit and others lose out when it had nothing to do with them. And why should the indigenous get all the development on that land that would never have happened if left to the indigenous. BC can find some undeveloped land and give it to them. Or some money like usual. It’s always only about money. None of them want to give up their trucks and phones and internet to get back to hunting and fishing and living off the land.
The Crown entity still exists, does it not. All the benefit to none Indigenous people still exists even with the Crowns past shady dealings to have the table be weighted for their interests. Your point very much boils down to hey we did shitty things, but I didn’t do it yet I want to keep all of the benefits of it. If any mention of correcting that wrong is ever brought up, all of a sudden it’s a bridge too far and the world’s ending. Also you come across as idiotic when you resort to anecdotal stuff and bring in stereotypes or assumptions. Your stance loses credibility and validity. I’m always open for healthy and respectful discussion but it needs not to resort to name calling, stereotypes, over generalizations or assumptions.
I've said in another post how much better it has been for us F N because of how this Govt has been. I can find meaningful work to support my family. I don't get handouts like someone mentioned the Ontario bands get ($250k). Had it not been for this Govt, i would be enslaved by western people's companies controlling all the work and no opportunity to live comfortably. Many companies i work with starting to get it. We want our land decisions to be respected over stewardship, and get a chance to work and provide for ourselves. This wasn't happening in any big way even 10 years ago. It was a bit, but nothing like it is today. I can start and grow a business.
Well that’s great. Because if more became self sufficient we could stop the handouts.
Yes! Interesting watching the Rustad interview and he speaks highly of Osoyoos band. Many of us use that model to replicate our own economic model and people get mad.
Not that we're here to please any of you, but confused when we try to make our own money we're bad. We want land to make our own money, we're bad, we get handouts, we're bad.
The model from the last 100 years, well that's not happening anymore, we need to go forward somehow. Most of us aren't looking for handouts. It's all very complicated.
Yes. There are a few examples of very successful bands doing great things. Unfortunately that’s not the majority.
Also despite not wanting to “please us” it’s going to be much harder to win these cases with taxpayers not on board. I mean technically you can fight for the land but with your own money.
The issue is the sustainability. But again, the bands seem to get the land and put casinos and weed shops on it. That attracts organized crime. Start small businesses doing healthy things not businesses that add to the problems with addictions and crime.
The sooner we stop telling people to direct their anger to the crown, the sooner we have a chance at real discussions for real solutions. The government is simply current people elected and paid for by current people (including F N since the 60s). Any monetary solutions / damages have already come from and will still need to come from taxpayers. It's a waste of time to direct people to be angry at something that ambiguous.
And there are F N and non that act in bad faith. We shouldn't be deifying anyone by group here.
The thing many are seemingly unwilling to understand is that any agreement between the federal governement (aka the crown)and First Nations is between sovereign entities. The relationship that exists between Indigenous people and the Crown is a distinct one and is perpetual in nature, it’s picked up by the next generation from those before and passed to the generations to come and it’s a relationship that always requires communication, commitment and redress. You can’t have meaningful discussion about how to rectify issues without that very simple understanding.
Also to be clear any “funding” for Indigenous communities comes from our own Trust Funds that have been held hostage by the Crown and in some cases missed used or stolen from by Crown representatives since said relationship began. It doesn’t come from Tax Payers like so many like to frame it to create outrage or create a narrative to support their political stance. Now settlements for Treaty obligations by the Crown being breached does come from the government coffers, it’s the penalty that happens when you don’t follow the agreements made. It follows the principle still used by businesses. If you are late or don’t pay your bill it doesn’t just go away. The original amount plus interest or some fee is required to correct the business relationship. I am perplexed how it seems many don’t understand that. It’s a cost and the point behind it is to correct past behaviour and in the future not be derelict in one’s obligations.
Regarding your last point about those who act in bad faith, I’m not saying their aren’t bad apples in any bunch, what I’m saying is if your own house isn’t in order what gives you the right or feeling of supremacy to then lecture others about the same issues your own entity(government) has yet to magically address. It’s pot calling kettle and just hypocritical at best.
Re funding, um no. The provincial and federal governments fund tens of billions of dollars, every single year, to F N from the general revenues. This does not include other settlements, land transfers, revenue sharing agreements, etc. Yes, for sure, there are the trusts but those funds are small by comparison. Last I saw dispensing them in their entirety wouldn't even come close to 1 year of funding.
Then you don’t understand where a large portion of general revenues originated and continue to come from. And the data you mentioned is not accurate as I have more direct insight to the situation then you would and if you aren’t aware of the basics of the general revenues and Indian Trusts connection then I can with a high certainty say anything from there on is heavily biased and objectively not accurate.
To begin Trusts were set up at treaty times to be a separate form of monetary value for Indigenous nations outside of land holdings of the nations. The Trusts were distinct by nation as we are sovereign entities. Over the decades of mishandling by Crown Representatives either stealing outright, moving things around to obfuscate the theft or using it for funding of canals and other infrastructure without the Indigenous nations consent, nor for the benefit of these nations but rather for non indigenous people or their business industries as easy examples. As a result the ledger became messy and the Crown deliberately withheld access to “OUR” own funds. They also illegal used their “legislation” to make it “illegal” to use our own money for education and a laundry list of other things if access was even possible.
All of which contradicts the promises and guidelines of our distinct relationship outlined during the original treaty deliberations. These trust funds were massive then, exactly why they used them illegally to fund infrastructure for the non Indigenous population and are now exponentially larger if understood through today’s dollars. It was through Crown malfeasance that they were mixed under the General Revenues account categorization as oppose to their original separate and distinct trust account that corresponded to each Indigenous Nation.
You want to know why, the federal government truthfully can’t delineate these funds in their entirety, it’s because they are too large of value that the very idea of doing so as it is not the Crowns money would in reality bankrupt the Crown entity ten times over because they still subvertly use the funds for other things that aren’t for our nations. It’s why calling it General Revenues insinuate the money is 100% the Crown governments alone but it’s not and never was from the start. Mixing illegal funds with some legitimate revenue from Tax Payers is their attempt to wash the money clean of where it was derived from and make it hard to keep track.
That’s the blunt reality and the misinformation or downright lying regarding this fundamental fact is why basic understanding of this is so rare.
Agree the understanding and misinformation is widespread, so help get us up to speed given your expertise. I have absolutely no doubt that the governments play funny accounting all over the place. If there is a site your could refer us to, that would be helpful. In the alternative, how much were the total trusts back at initiation, what is the balance today, and how much do you suggest has been misapproriated? Also, on the general revenues budget, what line items are from indigenous sources?
https://cashback.yellowheadinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Indian-Trust-Fund-FAQs-Yellowhead-Institute-5.2021.pdf
Thanks, will have a look.
And sorry, as I read thru your reference posted (TY again) can you clarify "funding"? Are you suggesting NO tax dollars fund F N or just that certain line items aren't or ?
He is right on point! We fund a group of people in this country to scam money from all the other people of this country. A massive recurring c¡rclejėrk.
Not just this country, the U.S. as well. Traditional lands were split by the border and since there have been courts granting rights in this country to extend to the U.S. as part of traditional hunting grounds. The Vancouver land claim is not settled as they are now battling each other with regards to traditional neighbouring borders and vying for a piece of the claim.
Ron Moobler
[removed]
Please keep all content and discussions substantive and relevant to the post or to the general theme of the r/VancouverLandlords.
Those who repeatedly break this rule may be evicted from this sub.
In my opinion, why didn't past governments take a route something that mixes NZ and Australia approach. Since we assumed all the debt owed by the UK government and the Crown with independence. Why not remove Indian Act, pay up all the financial owing to all the bands, to settle the debt and land payment issue. And do something like Australia, by giving traditional land use rights to the natives(no land title, land use rights for hunting, fishing, and traditional ceremonies etc) and have more homogenous and one singular nation with bands and nations having their own municipality. Thanks past governments and UK and the crown for this perpetual problem for the future generations because you guys like status quo so much...
[removed]
Please keep all content and discussions substantive and relevant to the post or to the general theme of the r/VancouverLandlords.
Those who repeatedly break this rule may be evicted from this sub.
Last I heard, there is not 1 indigenous Beothuk in Newfoundland. No reserves. No land claims. It's starting to sound attractive.
There are two primary lands: government and unceded. I believe it was King George V who initiated this. Private lands are rider ownership on government lands and pay taxes and without a receiving buyer, reverts the governmentownership. Now unneeded lands will have primary ownership and will seek taxes. Worse: government works for the welfare of Canadians while unceded lands do not.
True
They need to do what us Jewish people did about the Germans. Forgive and move on. Jews have built themselves back up since 1945 to be the most powerful people on the planet. And we didn't do it by dwelling on the past and feeling sorry for ourselves asking for handouts from the German or Swiss governments.
How about everyone be branded as Canadians , all equal under a single flag , equal rights , equal representation. That would fix the issue .
I'm politically left inclined and I totally agree with this guy
What should be considered is that First Nations should have a right to collect a fee on the transfer of land. Why the province can collect a land transfer tax, but the first nations cannot seems strange. And that's a gut reaction, I haven't seen discussed.
Every reserve is a dump.
That's not true
Yes it is
From guy who has never set foot on a reserve. Wasn't a dump till you showed up.
I’ve probably been on more reserves than you
Know veneen to more residential schools than you.
They don’t exist anymore.
They I'd when I went to school. Fort Smith, Hay River NWT. Actually Mark Carneys Dad was principle at Smith while was there. Visiting a Rez gives you street cred, living on one does t?
People keep saying in RE market that I’ll improve but it won’t especially due to this. I saw a brand new home sold for 1.6 wherein it was listed 1.9 last year due to these complications
Aboriginal people are not necessarily Canadians - this seems dismissive of their autonomy.
Let's say the people who sold you the land didn't have clear title but sold it to you anyhow. No fault of yours. Then the courts you set and created affirmed this. I suspect you as the original land owner would like clear and fair compensation. However you choose not to sell maybe based on damage done, etc. Now some caucasion guy out of nowhere rants on disregarding the rule of law. Really?!
This is only my opinion Well this is all a result of the folly White Christian Colonialism; if you would have practiced foresight and practiced understanding & following the true teachings of Jesus Christ instead of being so greedy most likely this would have been avoided as these tradition indigenous cultural zones would have been preserved and undeveloped.
And used as dumps by the abroritinal people
[removed]
Please keep all content and discussions substantive and relevant to the post or to the general theme of the r/VancouverLandlords.
Those who repeatedly break this rule may be evicted from this sub.
Cringe
[removed]
Please keep all content and discussions substantive and relevant to the post or to the general theme of the r/VancouverLandlords.
Those who repeatedly break this rule may be evicted from this sub.
This isn't a Canada wide issue, and millions of Canadians hate, literally hate Ind igenous people anyway.
Reconciliation matters, but not like that! Yeah, ok.
Keep fighting just like every other government has fought for the last 50 years, and keep losing just like they kept losing. Negotiations are better than litigation.
What do you mean “millions hate indigenous”. Do you have a reference?
Millions of people hate Indig people. As in wish ill towards them, are severely prejudiced towards them, actively worknto harm them.
Just looking at events, news and history.
You keep repeating this. Show me the stat where it proves “millions” wish ill towards them. Canada has been very generous towards reconciliation.
Buddy is just spewing random numbers and expects people will believe it.
How about you back your comments with sources? You can’t even prove that Jewish aren’t being targeted across Canada when there’s been countless articles stating how much antisemitism has been on the rise.
Do you believe there are rac ist people in Canada? What percentage of Canadians do you think it is?
I believe it's around 10%.
See, there's no single source for something like this. There's no survey where Canadians say, "Yes, I'm ra cist." Most acist people won't even admit it to themselves. "I have a nat ive friend." Is almost an admission.
When a healthcare worker chooses to give substandard care to a person because of their ethnicity, is that rac ism?
When police choose to arrest a person more frequently due to their ethnicity, is that rac ism?
What happens is you look to surveys from healthcare, prison, social services, politics, social media, and personal interactions from myself and others of many ethnicities and you can infer from all of that an estimated number of Canadians who are genuinely rac ist towards Indi genous people.
The small, almost dead, former mining/logging town a few minutes from me is openly raci st almost completely. Hundreds of people, some openly saying things people only say online, like "we should restart reside ntial schools", or "finish the job if they don't think they were conquered."
Then you have the CRD where you can check a box and give your taxes to local bands.
Word salad.
Yes it is a Canada wide issue, also thanks for admitting it is an issue.
No, Canadians do not hate Indigenous people, in 2023 there were 70 police-reported hate crime incidents targeting First Nations people, Métis, and Inuit people in Canada. Based on this we can say generally Canadians do not hate first nations, but things will change if this continues.
Reconciliation definitely doesn’t matter at all. Its a never ending cycle. It doesn’t matter how much money or land is given, you will continue to ask for more. How much needs to be given up to reconcile? When will the payments end? When do the special privileges end? Can you put a dollar amount on how much is needed for First Nations to be reconciled with?
He's talking about land claims. This isn't a Canada wide issue..
Hate crime statistics are not a reliable indicator. They show Jewish people as the most affected, but I'd bet you a crisp $20, that many/most Christians in Canada would greatly disagree. Hate crimes reported by Indig enous people don't ever amount to anything, that's why they don't bother reporting them. Just like Indigen ous people are afraid of going to the hospital, but that's not reported clearly either.
3 men hunted down 2 indig people and killed them, and that wasn't record as a hate crime.
Things are reconciled when people aren't less than based on rates of things I shared.
The payments aren't recon ciliation or reparations, they an accident as a result of the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the Constitution, the Indian Act and The Supreme Court case Guerin.
Why are you throwing out comments like they have a basis in fact. I’m a Christian and I think Jewish people are the most targeted. Stats agree.
As a Christian, seconded. Jewish people absolutely face the most actual hatred in Canada and it’s not close.
(This is true even if I was and am horrified by all of the churches burned over the residential school genocide hoax)
That was horrendous. Absolutely no excuse for that bs. Especially when the dummies burned indigenous churches as well. And as you say it was a hoax - unintended or not.
Exactly! Literally burning down churches on reservations. It hurt the most to see our own politicians downplaying and justifying it.
That's why I said, most/many. Not all. The most targeted for hate are indig. Stats don't show events they show reports. Indig ppl so t report hate crimes, nothing is done about them so it's a waste of time.
This wasn't a hate crime. https://www.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg/article/man-convicted-of-killing-indigenous-woman-with-trailer-hitch-released-on-day-parole/
This wasn't a hate crime https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bilodeau-parole-hunter-deaths-1.7447189
Both were specific violence, that led to death, towards indig people. They weren't hate crimes according to the law or news.
Is there evidence that their ethnicity motivated the crime? Every time a crime is committed by one race against another race does not automatically mean that a crime was committed by one race against another race due to racial hatred.
Yes. In both.
And where is the evidence.
If you don’t have any stats to defend your position how do you know. This looks like a trust me bro. Anecdotal evidence is not proof.
Do you think the money to settle the land claims comes solely from the people affected by the claim? Or is it all Canadians? Please use your head.
The people treated as lesser than is regular Canadian citizens, no other racial group gets a veto on major projects like the pipeline.
Again when does it end?
It's not all Canadians, something like 14 million Canadians didn't pay federal income tax last year. 5 million live below the poverty line. 60% of FNs people live off reserve, and many on reserve pay taxes as well.
Nobody gets a veto. If BC makes it a de facto veto that's not a veto, because there are a ton of projects that moved on even with objections. Like tmx and site c. Yeah, uncle Tom's dock didn't get approved, but that means more negotiations have to happen to resolve the issues.
Yeah this isnt getting anywhere.
Everyone pays taxes btw income tax isnt the only source of revenue for the government. Status Indians however generally do not pay the Goods and Services Tax (GST) or Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), or provincial sales tax (PST), on goods and services if the transaction has sufficient "connecting factors" to a reserve.
Who has the special privileges again?
That's not a privilege it's a law.
Privilege is going to a hospital and not wondering if you'll get worse care because of your ethnicity. Privilege is not hiding your ethnicity when you go to a hospital for the birth of your child so they don't call social services. Privilege is when you don't hide who you are when you call to rent an apartment.
Over 60% of status live off reserve. Lots on res pay fed tax because they work off. Ontario is odd because it's all tax, but in BC you can get PST off, legally even on reserve. Napkin math makes it around 100-150k status who don't pay federal tax, and people have to travel for all kinds of things that aren't tax exempt.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxes/first-nations-pay-more-tax-than-you-think-1.2971040
lol. It’s not a privilege is a law? Privilege made that law.
He's talking about historic wrongs commited again a certain group of people. But since you're part of the privileged you wouldn't know anything about that.
I don’t need to be part a certain group to understand the issues.
You’re not taking into consideration all the investment that’s scared away due to the potential issues with the indigenous.
There's a bunch of investment made with FNs, like Kitimat LNG, Senakw and Jericho. Forestry, mining have slow downs, but also great investments and progress. I can't calculate scared away investment, but dozens of 15+ million dollar projects happend last year. That's what BC calls a large project and you can look them up.
In the prairies there's a coalition of 70+ bands who fully support and invest in O&G. In Ontario several bands are heavy into mining.
You cant calculate scared away investment but apparently can calculate how many first nations dont report hate crimes.😂👍
Most is way easier to calculate then a dollar figure of imaginary investment. It's like that forced hotel sale that was "scared away" by the Cowichan Decision. 30 seconds of searching and reading and you find out it's a forced sale and the property was a bad investment and it did in fact sell. That story got so much traction, but it's all fake.
No, “most” without any real data is just bullsh*t.
And how many Canadians hate FNs.
All of these investments are just the indigenous hiring outside consultants, contractors and others to do the work. They’re not doing the world themselves. They are just exploiting the resources under the land that they wouldn’t know about without people telling them. And since they aren’t building businesses or going to school or getting the expertise once the resources are gone the flow of money is gone. So again - not sustainable.
If millions of Canadians disliked Indigenous folks the constitution would never have entrenched their rights, Reconciliation would never have started, billions of dollars in settlements would have never been reached.
Look around the world. People have an immense ability to be vile. Canada has tried very hard to show the world that an alternative is possible. No other society on this Earth works as hard as ours to make amends and to uplift one another.
From an early age going to school in Vancouver we were taught a very romanticized perspective about Indigenous peoples. It was that narrative on which Reconciliation was then built.
Much of that narrative has come crashing down to reality over the last 5 months for myself and many like me.
What we have learned from that is, as with all things, there are limits, even to Reconciliation.
We can only litigate so much of the past before innocent people in the present begin to be aggrieved by it. That red line, as is now increasingly clear, is the existence of our current society, and property that is currently owned.
We’re not going to reconcile Canada out of existence. We’re not going to reconcile our private properties and wealth away.
The government can negotiate, Nations can litigate. However there is an inherent limit to all this which is our democracy. There’s only so much that can be done before the people get fed up, say enough is enough, and change the laws and the system.
Ron Butler is right. Land claims are immensely damaging to Reconciliation.
My best guess is 3-5 million Canadians hate Indig people, as well as some combination of other ethnic groups.
There wasn't a referendum, it's not like Canadians chose to enshrine Aborig inal Rights in the Constitution, it was a last minute change.
Germans are still paying reparations to Jewish people, I'd say they try way harder as a people to make amends and uplift each other.
Recon ciliation isn't built on school tales, it's built on not wanting to get sued. This altruistic Canada that you are describing doesn't exist, and has never existed.
If you don't think reco nciliation is worthwhile since the last 5 months you're proving my point about it not being real.
This is not litigation of the past. There are ongoing broken laws, the fact that the first one happens years ago doesn't matter because Canada made it illegal for FNs to sue for 70 years, another courts said we have to at least listen.
Canada won't cease to exist, fee-simple land ownership won't disappear.
Politicians and their corporate donors run Canada. The people don't matter to them.
Lol where are you getting these ‘hate’ statistics 🤦♂️
Just an estimate.
Ridiculous. That’s not how it works.
I was really hoping he was going to have a decent argument, but he didn't deliver. If the indigenous have a true legal claim to these lands, then it's no argument to say that pursuing that claim and having it turn Canadians against the indigenous is a reason not to pursue it. But that's what he claims. That's silly
I was waiting for him to say businesses would be reluctant to build here because of this which is a pretty fair argument.
Yea he hinted at that I think I heard. Which is exactly the problem. We can't just have property rights evaporate. But he didn't elaborate or even defend the claim. And again if the indigenous have legal land claims you can't just say they shouldn't pursue them because it'll annoy Canadians. At least give us a good legal defense of why their claims shouldn't be upheld, not that it frustrates your emotions.
Yo RON - YOU'RE A SETTLER.
What’s funny about this whole thing is .. this is exactly what happened to the First Nations people in the first place. They owned the property and it was taken through a verbal agreement (Douglas treaties) where premier Douglas just told the legislature that he bought the land through a hand shake agreement.
Everyone is losing their minds and calling it insanity - cause it is. But the insanity is on both sides of the equation.
Let’s travel back a little bit in history and reconcile with the nations who battled and competed for their lives, against other tribes. Your ideology will not allow you to comprehend the history of the conquered or victory of the period. Let this continue and observe the retaliation against the First Nations
Do you understand what treaties are?
Treaties ? U mean the tribes had notary in the 1500’s?? U might have a photo copy ?
Nah just the one you cry babies keep bitching about. The one where your crown violated said treaty. You know
Ancestry traces back to 1400 trois rivieres. Not reciting my regret just moving forward in a modern ,fee simple- ton democracy where everyone has to submit to… well not everyone
Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia … indigenous people were never conquered. They sold their rights, and got ripped off. It’s funny how inter generational wealth can happen through British (like the monarchy, the dukes etc) yet when it comes to First Nations people just think they’re lazy and want hand outs.
No, they were billionaires of their era.
What do you mean the first place. The indigenous that BC and other governments talked to fought over land from previous indigenous bands.
I mean that the indigenous people had premier Douglas make false claims that they sold their land for what ever prices and then it was just taken over time. And now that it’s happening to other people they’re in a panic. This is the same thing they went through.
The government used to do crazy stuff. Sometimes they’d take their kids away if they didn’t sign their land away. Or they’d force them into mental hospitals for being incompetent then they’d seize their property.
You are making a statement that is not a fact. It’s anecdotal evidence at best. And not widespread. So your argument is disingenuous.
Funny how I get downvoted by people that don’t know history whatsoever. These aren’t arguments they’re findings of the court.
https://douglastreaties.uvic.ca/pdf/white-and-bob-1964.pdf
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2334/index.do
Edit:
My actual sisters were taken away because my dad is indigenous. It was called the 60s scoop. The cops showed up at the hospital and told my dad if he didn’t give my sister to them they’d charge him with child abuse. So yes the government did crazy stuff. I lived it. They gave my sisters 100k each as compensation.
Here is a radio segment of someone I know, whose aunt was taken for not signing away her land.
https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-17-edmonton-am/clip/16178906-an-alberta-first-nation-looks-regain-status
I don’t think anyone is denying the 60s scoop. It’s just that people are making every single aspect some horrible event and exaggerating things in order to get sympathy and more money.
It was pretty bad. I grew up in the streets and saw a lot of it first hand. One of my friends brother was picked up by the cops and taken out of town in -40 and kicked out of the cop car. They took his shoes. He froze to death trying to walk home. Sadly the event wasn’t isolated as it was a common occurrence in the late 90s.
I’ve heard about some of that. And that family should be compensated. It’s awful. And in that case I believe in the generational trauma thing.
Yup they were called the starlight tours of Saskatoon. Either way this is how we end up with these horrible stories. I am sure some are exaggerated. But my sisters got barely anything for being scooped. If the cops took my kids away and gave me $100k as compensation 2 decades later I’d think it was a joke. My dad never got anything though. I get free counseling.
Ya that’s lot right. People directly affected should be well compensated. But it seems like they just throw money at everyone and call it a day.
[removed]
Please keep all content and discussions substantive and relevant to the post or to the general theme of the r/VancouverLandlords.
Those who repeatedly break this rule may be evicted from this sub.
Look at that magnificent pelican gullet on this milk bag
I dont agree with the yoinking of private land. It is unfair and destabilizing.
That said, Ron is incorrect when he says buyers need to be able to buy to own permanently. It is a flaw of our system that we buy land and then own it until the sun explodes. It impoverishes future generations compared to a system where land is leased or heavily taxed. A system where people only buy land for a time while they wish to use it would actually improve the economy. Singapore sorta does this. Many jurisdictions have higher taxes on land than we do and a better economic trajectory.
edit: hordes of economists, nobel laureates, Einstein, Tolstoy, Churchill, even right wing economist Friedman and loads more said what I'm saying. I welcome the downvotes, but please explain why anything I said is incorrect. Link some reading if you can.
Canada is the second largest country on earth.
There is no shortage of land in Canada. There never has been. There never will be.
There is shortage of desirable land in urban centers.
We can build more urban centers - but that would be expanding colonialism and is "bad". As is the govt of BC would give the land to the natives before making more urban centers due to the ideological nature of Eby.
Also anyone here who owns property benefits from densification. Which is all politicians. So they vote against expansion.
Can you suggest an actionable plan for how the BC govt should be building more urban centres like you seem to want?
The BC government shouldn't build more urban centers. They should sell more land and relax the regulations so that private citizens start corporations to build more urban centers.
I don't really see how selling land somewhere in the middle of nowhere helps. You can get cheap rural land already, right?
Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but we could agree. I think allowing this 8 plex in West Van is a good start. Do you?
We managed to build new urban centers 100 years ago but can't today?
We could turn Squamish for example into a million person city. Rivers as big as the Squamish in Europe have lots of cities on them. Here it's mostly undeveloped. Government interference makes construction and living costs prohibitive if it's allowed at all.
Singapore does it cause land is a scarce resource. There is no reason to adopt a similar policy in our country.
Is land a scarce resource near jobs in Canada?
No buddy. People can totally just go in the middle of nowhere and build their own cities.
Canada is big, the amount of land in and around cities isn't. When investors capture that land, people are fcked because they can't just go build their own cities.
Private land ownership is beyond stupid. Even Adam Smith understood that 250 years ago.
Hi. In response to your question, The book The Mystery of Capital by de Soto is a good one.
It's like you missed my first sentence. I don't agree with the yoinking of private land. The de soto criticism would make sense if I supported the yoinking of private land.
What do you think de soto is saying that goes against anything I've said?
Well I thought where you were headed, but easily could be wrong, is that while you didn't think existing title should be removed, over time that you were suggesting that land essentially be used (ie rented) for periods of time vs. owned. If that were the case, the uncertainty that comes with that is where I think de Soto would struggle. But maybe I misunderstood.
*
Correctbasically correct! I think ownership is fine as long as they pay a high tax.50% agree!
I totally agree that uncertainty is bad, and that if I suggest something to you that you don't understand, that is very uncertain.
I totally disagree that a system where we rent or lease or own with high tax is necessarily more uncertain. I don't know where you get that it has to be uncertain. Do you think a stable/certain system like that is possible?
You didn't misunderstand me, except that you seem to think I want uncertainty. I don't.
edit: *
Then maybe it just comes down to our differing opinions on whether you can rent or own with the exact same anticipated certainty. I might even agree with you if considering the question in isolation. But we're not, it's relative to other economic environments and opportunity costs. If I can start my business and invest where I know I own the land and control my fate vs renting and my terms changing, I'm going with the former. And in that world, who funds necessary land capital improvements?
Sounds like you are open to the possibility of a stable system where owners pay higher taxes on land value, which is great, but that you think it doesn't matter anyway because then people wouldn't improve their land.
This is LVTs 101. Tl;dr improvements are not taxed, only land value is.
People will develop more under such a system, not less.
If people don’t own the land and the homes and businesses on it they won’t invest and maintain those investments. You’re likely suggesting socialism. Which is always suggested by people who don’t own land.
I'm not suggesting socialism at all! People can own land same as they do now, only pay a higher tax rate on the land value (while workers can pay a little less in income tax). If anything, I'm more of a capitalist than you.
Under my system, we wouldn't charge property tax on structures AND we'd see lower land prices and so development would skyrocket.
This has nothing to do with who I am or my economic situation. I have it pretty good. I'm just talking about what system is best.
There is absolutely no way you are more of a capitalist than I am. Sorry. That’s kind of a crazy statement since you don’t know me. The idea about paying property taxes is that we need that money for municipal services. Putting an unfair responsibility for what income taxes pay on land owners would only be suggested by someone who doesn’t own land.
Why would structures not pay property tax? They use services too?
It’s a little arrogant to think you’ve thought up some ideal situation (which of course would work best for you) and think other smarter people have not thought of alternates to what we do now.
And the development is what drives rhe infrastructure costs needed to be paid by those taxes. If I have a street of quad plexes in the air vs single family homes on the same lots I need a heck of a lot wider sewer main. Or how about a car wash on a commercial lot vs an office. It's nonsensical as a first choice method.
Let's imagine the quad plex is 2-3 times the property value of the single family home. The quad plex's wider pipe and garbage collection etc. doesn't cost the municipality 2-3 times as much as the SFH because you get economies of scale. The garbage is all in one place, for example.
The De Soto book didn't answer my next question, which was to ask you if you think property taxes should be based on the cost of municipal services in an ideal world. I'm so far 0/2 finding a coherent person who answers the questions I ask so I won't hold my breath for an answer.
There are economies of scale for sure, but it still costs more, could be a lot more with an egregious example like a tower. Your direct question is hard to answer because every fed, province/state and local muni covers different services. And what isn't done at the top level cascades down for someone to do it below (along with the cost). I don't think any system is perfect, but in general I think the best systems 1) better link use with cost and 2) share costs where scale helps. I also think local income or sales taxes don't make sense so property taxes are the avenue to fill that lowest bucket.
Part of the issue here is we have a pretty small cost when wealth transfers so land wealth can really be hoarded over generations. If there was more tax incented recycling back into the system I think that would help keep prices lower, but need to think about that more.
I totally agree cost resulting from an individual should ideally be borne by that individual, which is why I have the position I do.
Imagine I own a huge lot in downtown Vancouver which I fence off and do whatever I want on. I sell it decades later for a huge profit.
There is a cost to society of me screwing around like that. It could be a park or housing supply or businesses or whatever. Housing, for example, would mean people in Vancouver on average pay lower rents and prices. It would mean labour becomes a little cheaper, as workers can more easily live there.
It sounds like your ideal system would tax the crap out of a landowner like myself.
Well someone has to pay for the infrastructure beyond your four corners to serve what you have decided to build. I think that should be you vs me or others. I'm not sure where the money is coming from in your model? In general I think the lower any taxes the better.
It already is based on municipal costs. But what if you have one person in a huge house vs 20 in a small one. The small house uses a lot more resources like the roads and transit. How do you resolve that. You want the large house to pay even more?
No, not at all. I'm supporting your argument for why it matters WHAT is built on the same parcel of land when it comes to taxes. Of course there will be variances of actual vs planned in terms of infrastructure used.
No it isn't, it's based on property value relative to the property value of others.
I thought you were arguing that current property taxes were good and matched costs/usage? This scenario is a great thought experiment and shows why that doesn't work currently. I'd love to know how you'd resolve that.
I think about costs to society differently, and my list of costs for these people has a different item on it than you, I think. I'll explain:
Imagine I own a huge lot in downtown Vancouver. I fence it off and do whatever I want on it for decades, then sell it for a huge profit. In my view, I've created a huge cost to society. If I didn't screw around like that, society would have housing or workplaces or a park or something there that benefits them a whole lot more than my dungeon. In this scenario: Am I creating a cost to society in your view?
Everyone has to walk around my fence, bus further etc. because I'm in the middle of downtown.
What are the land values? Is the large house on a sprawling lot? Then yes.
The rate is based on municipal needs divided up among property owners.
Who’s going to own and maintain the park for all to use? That fenced up property is costing the owner each year. I can’t imagine someone paying for years and not getting any revenue from it hoping the value will increase more than putting that money in the stock market with no effort. That property still has to be maintained. They can’t let the weeds grow or allow graffiti to stay. Or let the fences rot.
A house in a large lot costs the municipality peanuts. We need that lot for housing but that’s another issue. You also need to incentive developers to buy that lot and make it into apartments. But they will likely be rentals so doesn’t help people who want to own.
They’re a Georgist or whatever it’s called. They think that land is supposed to be equally shared by everyone so when people own said land they can slap an arbitrary tax amount on what it would be worth at its highest usable value. The tax from that would offset the income tax of someone actually being productive. I like the premise but I don’t think it would work in real life because the value of land is changing all the time and who determines the maximum amount of value it could be. Further more I’d just move as far away as possible to get away from paying any income tax on it.
Lots and lots of holes in the idea, sounds good on paper but what actually determines the price of the taxes.
Would I be punished because I have a house instead of a triplex? It’s not well thought out and the taxes derived from it would not off set income tax… even tho I wish they would.
Thanks for the explanation. He’s not able to articulate it very well. I think a lot of people on here see some idealistic perfect option and wonder why we aren’t doing it. Like socialism. Looks good on paper. Doesn’t work well in reality.
And agreed that it’s likely too complicated. How would you budget if you have to reduce the taxes on the houses if there was a real estate crash. And how do you determine what’s more productive. It would be hard to measure and I’m sure lots of people would contest it. Our system isn’t great but it’s hard to think of a better one.
Not at all! It all comes from economists and history, including the history of BC property taxes! We used to (more or less) do what I'm talking about here. Have you ever thought about why we separate land and structure on our property tax assessments? We actually used to have a more modern, economically productive system, at least according to economists and myself. I'd love to know if you'd ever heard anything about this or if it is new info. Vancouver had land value taxes.
neat read about evolution of BC property taxes here
I think the profit motive should go to productive work and capital. You think the profit motive should go to that, but not entirely. You think some profit motive should be reserved for those who buy land at a lower price and sell it later at a higher price without doing productive work.
That's why I said I'm more of a capitalist. In my mind, capitalism is about profit motive getting stuff done, and not rewarding speculation, for example. I'd love to know if you agree with my characterization of your position. Do you think it is important that people can buy land, hold it, and sell it later for more?
BC is a complete disaster. I would never want anything that’s done in BC to be replicated across Canada. It’s identity politics and activists. And lots and lots of fighting.
Real estate is not an efficient use of money. Especially flippers. They’re a scourge. So I agree that we should not be encouraging that sort of investment. But the politicians - lots in BC - have investments in real estate. They aren’t going to screw themselves. Also we need landlords. Not everyone can afford a house. I also don’t think it’s fair for home owners to shoulder the weight of the cost and let renters off the hook.
Well I told you my most efficient way of doing that. Supported by loads of economists.
What's your best way to end flippers or hoarding land or whatever? Personally I prefer a flipper to straight up hoarder. At least the flipper painted the house or whatever.
Someone else on here explained the issues with your concept better than I can. So have a look at what he said.
As for hoarders, who is a hoarder to you. Most landlords only have one or two rentals. The big landlords have rental apartment buildings. People can’t all be owners.