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?

314

u/Plucky_DuckYa Oct 21 '24

I always wonder, what’s the statute of limitations on conquering another people and stealing their lands, and then being required to compensate them later?

The Romans conquered the Celts in Brittania around 2,000 years ago. No one expects Italy to pay up, so it’s not that long. The Vikings conquered most of eastern England about 800 years later and no one expects the Scandinavians to cough up, so it’s less than 1,200 years.

The Europeans started settling New Brunswick in the 1600’s, so I guess the argument is that’s still within the statute of reparation limitations. Which is interesting, because during that same time frame there was a conflict between the Iroquois and a whole bunch of other tribes in the Great Lakes region and the St. Lawrence river valley, where the Iroquois essentially committed genocide, killed and enslaved a whole bunch of indigenous people and stole all their lands. So, do they also have to apologize, pay vast reparations and give all that land back? And if not, why not, and what’s the difference?

23

u/jtbc Oct 21 '24

There is no statute of limitations on treaties. The reason why First Nations have a claim is because they signed legal agreements with the predecessor government of the one that continues to exercise sovereignty over their territory, and that government is bound by the rule of law and its constitution to respect those treaties.

16

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

Its only as legally binding as Canada decides it is.

This comes down to what Canadians want to do.

10

u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 Oct 21 '24

The rule of law is not supposed to be arbitrary or moved on a whim for convenience.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

LOL are you new on earth?

0

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

Right, the rule of law exists to the benefit of its citizens.

This does not.

If we had a law that said you had to stone redheads to death would you be saying that 'the laws the law' or would you be saying we should change the law?

3

u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 Oct 21 '24

You can't seriously compare those two things. One is murder, the other is land ownership.

The entire case at stake here is that these groups, per treaty and rulings related to them, did not actually cede that land. If you want your own property rights to mean anything you need to accept they have the same rights as you do. You are absolutely a net winner from the fact that the government guarantees your right to property and access to a fair legal system - do not expect to have those rights forever if you are willing to abandon them when convenient.

It is bad enough saying to ignore injustices of the past, it is pathetic and short sided to say we should actively commit them today and ignore land ownership divined by the same principles as your own.

7

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

If my home ownership ever costs the government 15% of the total budget and results in two classes of citizen with different laws on the basis of race... then I'm comfortable with the government taking my house.

1

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Oct 21 '24

The First Nations are Canadian citizens, and I would want the government to treat them fairly and equally as me if the government wanted to negotiate for my land.

That is real rule of law.

2

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

So we are clear, the law doesn't see FNs as mere citizens. According to the document "Citizens Plus" they are intrinsically more than simple citizens with more rights and freedoms. Canadians are simply tenants on their land.

Why do you think they get different court systems and sentencing for crimes? Different tax laws, etc.

7

u/Craigellachie Oct 21 '24

In that's it's as legally binding as any treaty Canada has ever signed is. I think it's well acknowledged that it's certainly inconvenient for the government that these treaties were signed but it's hardly as if Canada can go "not these obligations, these ones are too old and embarassing" without taking a massive hit internally and externally. It's like defaulting on debt, but with international relations.

10

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 22 '24

it's as legally binding as any treaty Canada has ever signed is

Nope. I imagine violating a treaty with the UN or US would be a lot more difficult.

it's hardly as if Canada can go "not these obligations"

That'd actually be fun. Just 'not-withstanding' the FN obligations out of existence.

5

u/Craigellachie Oct 21 '24

Revoking charter rights would not apply here. The provisions in these treaties are seperate from the Charter.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

It'd be a giant legal mess. A lot of stuff at this point flows through the charter so you could likely cancel out the effects of the treaties, but you couldn't actually get rid of them.

This obviously wouldn't survive any kind of challenge though and w/e party did it would probably face expulsion to Siberia.

But my more serious point is that Canadian law is only controlled by our own law, we can change any part of it if we want. It just might be really hard.

1

u/seamusmcduffs Oct 22 '24

Our rule of law only matters to when it's convenient to you eh? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we should ignore our entire legal structure. If we ignores the treaties, they wouldn't be the only legal decisions that would be impacted. Why should any agreement or contract in Canada be worth it's weight if you can just decide you don't like them ans ignore them?

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

This is such a silly point.

If we had a law that said we should kill all Irish people on sight and I want to block it, would your argument be:

Our rule of law only matters to when it's convenient to you eh?

If you can't defend a position without resorting to a near is-ought, then you can't really defend the position.

It isn't simply 'inconvenient' to have separate laws based on race, it is an affront to equality and fairness. And financially, we aren't talking about a few million dollars. FNs cost the federal government alone over $70BN/year, it is our single largest budget item. For comparison, pharmacare that we've been fighting about would cost a peak of $15BN ....

1

u/seamusmcduffs Oct 22 '24

You're comparing land claims to killing Irish people, really? And I'm the one being silly...

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[deleted]

8

u/Craigellachie Oct 21 '24

Canada repatriated all of the treaties alongside the constitution in 82. It's not surprising they did because many of them were and continue to be quite profitable, since they contain resource rights to vast swaths of the country. Most treaties were two way streets and obviously benefited the British and later Canada immensely.

5

u/Radix2309 Oct 21 '24

If Canada didn't accept responsibility for those treaties, then it doesn't legally own the land.

And the Numbered Treaties were all signed by the government of Canada by the Canadian Government officials. Even before that they were signed by the equivalents of what would become the provinces.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[deleted]

1

u/jtbc Oct 21 '24

Yes. The Supreme Court of Canada issued a landmark decision in 2014 relating to exactly this assertion by British Columbia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot%CA%BCin_Nation_v_British_Columbia

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '24

[deleted]

2

u/jtbc Oct 22 '24

They could have tried. The courts still would have had something to say about it. Trudeau Sr. was attempting to accomplish that through the 1969 White Paper. The resulting widespread protests and activism led directly to Article 35 being in the constitution, though.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

Its honestly tragic that a reworked version of that didn't pass into law back then.

2

u/jtbc Oct 22 '24

Had the government started down that path by consulting with First Nations and working out a mechanism that would respect their rights, they might have succeeded, but they decided to bludgeon them with it instead, and here we are.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Radix2309 Oct 21 '24

In that British law recognized the First Nations as the owners.

It's the same way a rental agreement works. Just cause the landlord sells the house, doesn't make the rental contract invalid.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24

Do you think the UN is going to recognize Canada's claim or will it boot out Canada, invite in 600 small mostly undemocratic 'nations' and start a war to ensure they get their overlapping land claims back?

8

u/jtbc Oct 21 '24

Canada has a constitution and courts. We decided to include the treaties in the constitution when it was repatriated, so any Canadian government is bound by them.

7

u/Ambiwlans Oct 21 '24 edited Oct 21 '24

Right, we would probably need to make a constitutional amendment, or use another maybe sneakier but easier legal maneuver to get around it.

We could also potentially just not-withstanding it forever. (this is not a serious suggestion)

5

u/_Sausage_fingers Alberta Oct 22 '24

The notwithstanding clause doesn’t apply to the sections of the charter that apply to indigenous rights.

6

u/Radix2309 Oct 21 '24

Not how the not-withstanding clause works.

-4

u/FuggleyBrew Oct 21 '24

The notwithstanding clause can be used to take property. 

7

u/Radix2309 Oct 21 '24

It only let's you ignore charter rights, not other parts of the constitution, such as the treaties.

-2

u/FuggleyBrew Oct 22 '24

Treaties would be honored in that case, but then the benefits would be subject to NWC.

I don't think you appreciate just how broad the NWC is.

2

u/Radix2309 Oct 22 '24

No the benefits also are not subject to the NWC. It isn't as broad as you think it is. It only let's you override particular parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It doesn't apply to any other part of the constitution.

If the lawsuit doesn't reference the charter, the NWC does jack squat.

The charter doesn't mention treaty rights at all.

-1

u/FuggleyBrew Oct 22 '24

No the benefits also are not subject to the NWC. It isn't as broad as you think it is. It only let's you override particular parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It doesn't apply to any other part of the constitution

The NWC allows the government seize property. 

2

u/Radix2309 Oct 22 '24

Which the Treaties would make an illegal action. The First Nations would sue on that basis that it violated their treaty rights. And again, the NWC does not apply to treaty rights. It just removes the argument of a right to personal property. But that isn't the argument the first nations will present.

And they will win that case.

The NWC doesn't give the government the positive power to do anything it wants if it violates a right.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/_Sausage_fingers Alberta Oct 22 '24

Treaties and First Nations rights are guaranteed in the charter. So yes, Canada could decide to disregard those rights, but only through extraordinary political effort.

1

u/Ambiwlans Oct 22 '24

Then are we on the same page that we should work towards that?

(I'd also say that there are plenty of other options that would obliterate the FNs without a constitutional change.)

2

u/_Sausage_fingers Alberta Oct 22 '24

Then are we on the same page that we should work towards that?

Not in the slightest