jump to content
In the Network: Media Co-op Dominion   Locals: HalifaxTorontoVancouverMontreal

World Bank Darling Promotes Privatization of Reserves

Issue: 73 Section: Original Peoples Geography: West British Columbia Topics: land title, privatization

November 3, 2010

World Bank Darling Promotes Privatization of Reserves

Critics say fee-simple title on reserves could further erode Indigenous land base

by Emma Feltes, Neskie Manuel

Hernando de Soto on Peruvian TV. Photo: Roberto Bustamante/CC 2.0

VANCOUVER—Peruvian economist and World Bank poster child Hernando de Soto visited Vancouver earlier this month to speak in favour of the establishment of individual property ownership (“fee simple”) on First Nations reserves in Canada.

The First Nations Property Ownership (FNPO) conference—hosted by the First Nations Tax Commission—paired de Soto with a select roster of Indigenous leaders, lawyers, economists and scholars from across British Columbia and Canada to promote a proposal that would allow fee simple title on reserves.

Instead of collective title to reserve land held by bands, the proposal aims to give individuals living on reserve access to the same legal private property rights that exists in the rest of the country. Currently, collective title is bound by section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (a guiding provision of the Indian Act), which allocates legislative jurisdiction to the federal government over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians,” constitutionally protecting existing Indigenous title.

“What [the proposal is] doing is putting a damper on 91(24) lands,” said Harley Chingee of the First Nations Lands Advisory Board. “There’s no internal controls once you take 91(24) out of it. Because then the provinces—and Canada, for that matter—can have control.”

The proposal is championed by conference organizer C.T. (Manny) Jules, Chief Commissioner of the First Nation Tax Commission, former Chief of the Kamloops Indian Band and one of Canada’s foremost proponents of private property ownership on reserves.

The conference came at the crest of an increasingly aggressive effort throughout recent months to generate support for the controversial proposal—a charge led by Jules alongside conservative political scientist Tom Flanagan. Flanagan—a former campaign manager for Stephen Harper—has published a number of contentious books and articles prescribing solutions to First Nations economic development and land management. He most recently co-authored Beyond the Indian Act, which argues for federal legislation that would make way for fee simple on reserves.

In response to this effort, a growing group of Indigenous people and chiefs have been speaking out against the Jules/Flanagan proposal, arguing that fee simple property ownership will leave collective Indigenous title and rights and reserve lands—which are affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—vulnerable to encroachment by developers, corporate interests, and federal and provincial control. Chingee has been open in his rejection of the fee simple proposal, as has Arthur Manuel, spokesperson for the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade.

De Soto, president of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD), is notorious for advocating fee simple property ownership and market-led agrarian reform among Latin America’s campesinos. His ideas are promoted by international financial institutions like the World Bank, as well as the US international development organization USAID, which uses his theory to back their own market-driven development projects throughout Latin America.

He’s also been assailed with criticism from popular and grassroots organizations such as Via Campesina—a global peasant movement—which maintains that the ramifications of de Soto’s economic agenda are the global phenomena of dispossession of Indigenous people and intensified economic stratification.

Like de Soto’s proposal for Latin America, which aims to convert latent or “dead” assets into market capital, Jules and Flanagan aim to transform collective rights into individual titles, which can be openly traded on the market. In Canada, collective land title is understood to be the inherent right of Indigenous peoples.

In a letter against the fee simple proposal published in the First Nations Strategic Bulletin, Manuel asserts the power and protection of collective title. “No single individual can give up or extinguish our Aboriginal title and Indigenous rights. It would be suicide or extinguishment for our future generations to accept fee simple in exchange for our collective title,” he wrote.

Chingee’s response to the proposal warns of the damaging impact of privatizing reserve land. “The change would undermine signed treaties across Canada, undermine our political autonomy, restrict our creativity and innovation and place us in a dangerous position where any short-term financial difficulty may result in the wholesale liquidation of our reserve lands, or the creation of a patchwork quilt of reserve lands, like Oka,” he wrote.

The fee simple proposal has come under further fire for implying that individual property ownership is the sole recourse for economic prosperity on reserves. De Soto’s frequent reference to reserve lands as “dead capital” was wholeheartedly adopted by the conference organizers, who littered promotional material with the promise to unleash this untapped asset.

A recent article by Dan Cayo in The Vancouver Sun explains that a common approach taken by individuals on reserve is to find substitutes for individual property ownership, such as long-term leasing and “certificates of possession,” which are enough to provide sufficient collateral to qualify for business loans.

“Certainly you don’t need fee simple standards to prosper. People have an illusion that’s totally false,” says Chingee, citing examples of First Nations that have achieved economic success without fee simple ownership. “You just have to look at Westbank First Nation out in Kelowna. And there’s countless others, like Squamish Nation in Vancouver, for example, Macleod Lake Indian Band, up north of Prince George, that are prosperous 91(24) lands."

Ironically, the fee simple advocates tried to use Westbank’s economic success to their advantage, adding former Chief Ron Derrickson’s name to the conference’s list of speakers and promotional material without his consent or support.

Derrickson—known as one of the most successful Indigenous developers in the country—was alerted by Manuel to this name-borrowing. Once alerted, Derrickson voiced his disproval of the fee simple proposal and his name was removed from the list.

The FNPO website uses the Switsemalph 7 reserve near Salmon Arm as an example of a community with untapped development potential.

“Actually if you cut out the environmentally sensitive areas you come up with a picture that has a lot of development,” says Dave Nordquist from Adams Lake, refuting the FNPO’s claims about Switsemalph 7. The environmentally sensitive area is part of the Salmon River Delta, an area unsuitable for any land development.

Though Tom Flanagan is not a listed speaker at the conference, and is rarely named on the FNPO website, his presence is discernable. The cover image from Beyond the Indian Act graces the front page of the site, and his co-author, Andre Le Dressay, was a speaker during the Vancouver conference.

Beyond the Indian Act bears the subtitle “Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights,” implying that fee simple property ownership is a traditional right among Indigenous people in Canada. This message is reiterated in the forward and in a recent Globe and Mail editorial—both written by Jules, who evokes early Indigenous civilizations across the Americas to make the case that individual property rights and free market trade are fundamental to Indigenous peoples, and have been obscured and impeded upon by colonial legislation.

Nevertheless, the fee simple proposal also names the Torrens title system as a source of inspiration—a colonial model which hinges on the creation of an individual title registry. Its name pays tribute to Sir Robert Torrens, a colonial premier who introduced the title system to South Australia in the mid-19th century.

Though proponents claim that the right to fee simple title is inherent, the proposal is curiously lacking in popular Indigenous endorsement. Whether or not de Soto will be able to drum up support for the proposal remains to be seen.

Emma Feltes is a writer, researcher and activist based in Halifax and south interior British Columbia. Her work centers on First Nations-State relations, cultural heritage and intellectual property, and urban issues. Neskie Manuel is Secwepemc from the interior of British Columbia. He likes cycling and speaking Secwepemctsin. This article was originally published by the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Own your media. Support the Dominion. Join the Media Co-op today.

Comments

War

It's a sad state of affairs. Then again, as the Christian Bible makes clear, God lets an "operation of error" go to, or be performed by, those who are inclined to get from A to B by nefarious means. Exploiting others is about as nefarious as it gets. Why is that operation allowed to go forth? The passage continues to state plainly that it is so that those who act upon their wicked desires might then be judged. Thought crimes are for George Bush and his followers. (2Thessalonians 2:9-12)

It's true that elites have chose to civilization-build by exploiting and oppressing. There was never any need for people to approach life that way. When it comes to our souls and our relationship to God, we have choice. Always.

Alas, Human imperfection (which was 'not' built into us) allows for all kinds of folly, including the cruelest perversity (such as 'law & order' governments that are nothing more than highly organized, sophisticated and murderous crime organizations). But that imperfection isn't an impediment to those who might choose to care, for which reason so many (but not enough) do. The wicked have no excuse. Yes, Over time, wicked people have created a monstrous system that in turn compels everyone to embrace darkness, or to continue to embrace darkness, but it can't compel anyone to not care.

And so, Elites today are not only those who have carried on with monster building/feeding, but they can't even tolerate any hint of civilization breaking out. Probably each member fears that showing human compassion will be sniffed by his elite colleagues and lead to his swift and brutal extermination as they proceed, like vampires, to pounce on him.

And that is how the people have become the enemy. As Jesus Christ said, 'You can't slave for both God and for Riches'. You will either hate the one and love the other or vice versa. There's Obama, dutifully supported and followed by Stephen Harper, presiding over the theft of Iraq and Afghanistan from Iraqis and Afghanis, in India recently praising India and it's ruling class for being such a good friend of America, while the Indian government is murdering it's citizens - and calling all the victims, without disctinction, Maoists - who happen to be living on land that their (the government's) domestic and foreign partners in the private sector would like for themselves. The powerless Indians, many millions of them, who must either do nothing and wait to be devoured by their own government and it's soldiers or else try to resist and be branded as lawless criminals and then attacked for that, are facing the same sort of challenges (and even the same actors in many cases, no doubt) as our relatively more fortunate native Canadians who Emma and Neskie talk about in this article.

See the Democracy Now! report on Arundhati Roy's efforts to inform us about the Indian government's mass murders: "Acclaimed Indian Author Arundhati Roy On Obama's Wars, Poverty And India's Maoist Rebels" (http://bit.ly/d7DuAz)

Advertisement

Want to receive an email notice when a new issue is online? Click here

The Dominion is a monthly paper published by an incipient network of independent journalists in Canada. It aims to provide accurate, critical coverage that is accountable to its readers and the subjects it tackles. Taking its name from Canada's official status as both a colony and a colonial force, the Dominion examines politics, culture and daily life with a view to understanding the exercise of power.

»Where to buy the Dominion

User login