UnkNuk Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 9 hours ago, Boudrias said: IMHO land title does not exist anymore for multiple reasons Could you expand on that? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 7 hours ago, Bob Long said: The valuation of this is so high, it could really only be paid out in future profit on major projects. Canada can't write a cheque big enough to cover past actions. Exactly. 95% of BC is unceded land. How much would it cost to 'buy' BC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 29 minutes ago, UnkNuk said: Exactly. 95% of BC is unceded land. How much would it cost to 'buy' BC? If glen Clark was still in office, we might have been able to buy it cheap.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, UnkNuk said: Exactly. 95% of BC is unceded land. How much would it cost to 'buy' BC? Well, let's ask the UK as they started this whole thing C'mon Charles, let's see some of the royal inheritance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 16 hours ago, UnkNuk said: Exactly. 95% of BC is unceded land. How much would it cost to 'buy' BC? How mch of the value of your house are you willing to turn over to 1st Nations? 'Unceded land' is a legalistic expression of a situation that does not exist. In real terms get a ledger book out and add up the pros & cons. Some 1st Nations argue about title using European land title arguments. There is no agreement among 1st Nations about who controlled the land when Euros appeared since they fought over territory on a regular basis. The Kootenays were driven out of Alberta by the Blackfoot. Does that mean the Kootenays can claim parts of Alberta. You can extend that argument over much of BC. It is a complicated issue. I can agree about a level of compensation but land title is not part of the equation over most of BC. It takes political will which really does not exist. Stratified citizenship guarantees future trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Boudrias said: How mch of the value of your house are you willing to turn over to 1st Nations? 'Unceded land' is a legalistic expression of a situation that does not exist. In real terms get a ledger book out and add up the pros & cons. Some 1st Nations argue about title using European land title arguments. There is no agreement among 1st Nations about who controlled the land when Euros appeared since they fought over territory on a regular basis. The Kootenays were driven out of Alberta by the Blackfoot. Does that mean the Kootenays can claim parts of Alberta. You can extend that argument over much of BC. It is a complicated issue. I can agree about a level of compensation but land title is not part of the equation over most of BC. It takes political will which really does not exist. Stratified citizenship guarantees future trouble. The political part of it is loopy. You have people on the left falling over themselves to call themselves "settlers" and supporting non development choices. People on the right who think it's time to "get over it" and the center playing it by ear as far as I can tell. Stepping back a bit, I am really encouraged by what I see from groups like the Squamish nation who are becoming serious construction development players. It looks like a first Nations investment group will ultimately take over tmx from the feds. That's the path forward imo. Edited September 11 by Bob Long 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnkNuk Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 4 hours ago, Boudrias said: 'Unceded land' is a legalistic expression of a situation that does not exist For a situation that does not exist, I certainly hear about it quite frequently! Every time I watch a Canucks game I'm reminded that they're playing on the unceded lands of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations. 4 hours ago, Boudrias said: There is no agreement among 1st Nations about who controlled the land when Euros appeared since they fought over territory on a regular basis. From what I've read, that was a major stumbling block for the First Nations as they tried to make their land claims. I believe the aforementioned Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations have apparently been able to put aside their differences and are working jointly together. 4 hours ago, Boudrias said: The Kootenays were driven out of Alberta by the Blackfoot. Does that mean the Kootenays can claim parts of Alberta. Good question. I've wondered about that myself. I don't think the First Nations were living in an idyllic peaceful paradise prior to the arrival of the Europeans. 4 hours ago, Boudrias said: It is a complicated issue. That's putting it mildly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.