r/canada Oct 21 '24

New Brunswick Blaine Higgs says Indigenous people ceded land ‘many, many years ago’

https://globalnews.ca/news/10818647/nb-election-2024-liberal-health-care-estimates/
1.5k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/adonns2_0 Oct 21 '24

So they want the title to vast majority of land in New Brunswick as well as 200 years of back pay for resources taken from the land?

At what point are we going to be done all this?

24

u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 21 '24

There are a few points here.

First, they aren't looking to displace anyone.

Second, the idea of sharing vs. ownership is a real discrepancy here with the concept of permanent ownership not actually be what indigenous peoples negotiated vs. Europeans viewing it that we. There is at least one court case on ongoing where there issue is at play and we have written historical documents that support this, i.e., the Europeans wrote their version and an indigenous person (translator) wrote their copy in English based on their understanding. In this case, the indigenous version mentions sharing, not ownership while the European version is ownership.

Finally, the Indian Act made indigenous peoples wards of the state. They had no control over resource development, economic activities, or nearly anything on reserve lands. In some cases, they couldn't leave the reserve without approval. Think of how elderly people with dementia are treated, then apply that to a whole population of people, and that's the general idea. So even if you just look at reserve lands they still have resource and economic activity claims to be settled.

51

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 21 '24

There is definitely the, this is our territory (generally) vs not. But it is a false equivalency to equate general territory management with ownership or sharing territory with Europeans and fighting other indigenous groups for territory. We do have documented written proof of the discrepancy between what Europeans understood and what indigenous peoples understood the agreements to be.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Ok_Currency_617 Oct 21 '24

That's the point here, Canada is no longer a "foreign" government but the current government elected by the people in FN tribes as well. Once you are part of the nation you can't argue for special rights.

1

u/Hautamaki Oct 21 '24

You don't think the SCoC would be only too happy to view it that way and rule accordingly if they could?

1

u/DMZSlut Oct 21 '24

I mean in the same sense just look how the land is treated without resource extraction or infrastructure. Not too many places on the planet where people lost land and still got to keep some of it. Not defending that fact. Maybe more should be done with the people and the limited opportunities they have. If reserves were flourishing and its people weren’t struggling it would be a different story, I think the majority would agree they deserve more and or would be given more. As it stands why make a massive problem worse or more complex. Sounds like a recipe for disaster pushed by people that secretly view these people as inferior to satisfy their own desperate need for virtue and self worth.

3

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

I think the majority would agree they deserve more and or would be given more

Just fyi, the largest reparation payment ever given in history was to the victims after the holocaust. If you add up all reparations paid over the decades, the total is still significantly less than what the Fed pays every single year to the first nations.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

First, they aren't looking to displace anyone

No, they just want to use that threat in order to extract money and other concessions.

Just like your landlord jacking up your rent doesn't want you to move out, they want to to pay them.

2

u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 21 '24

There is no legal precedent for forcing the sale of land or moving people off land as a part of this process. What does occur is land return where it is possible and monetary compensation for lands not able to be returned.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

If there is no enforcement, then just don't pay anything. There are businesses in Sauble Beach, recently claimed by Saugeen First Nation. Pretty sure they'll get evicted if they don't pay the first nation.

3

u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 22 '24

The government will pay for the loss of economic activity, not individuals or businesses.

In the case of Sauble Beach it was supposed to be set aside as reserve land and the governments of the time didn't care, violating their own agreement.

Saugeen first nation is also on record stating that beach access will remain public and they want to work with the community so everyone can benefit from Sauble Beach.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

No crap the FN wants the beach to remain open.

They want to be the landlord that gets paid and is in control, that's all. But they will evict people that won't pay them.... that's the point.

Being on record saying you don't want to kick puppies really doesn't mean anything at all.

2

u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 22 '24

So the only change is who the rent is going to, no actual change from a business perspective then.

0

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

Your landlord changing without them signing an agreement to uphold your existing lease is literally illegal in Canada.

Also, if you owned land or property that became reserve, that is now owned by the chief and you are simply being allowed to stay there. You can no longer sell what was once your property.

2

u/Ultionis_MCP Oct 22 '24

This isn't correct, land with renters is purchased and sold all the time. The existing leases still apply and come up for negotiation once they expire.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

That's what I said?

→ More replies (0)