And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 10:14:37 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Foes alarmed by bill to grant land-use powers to Canada's Indians Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >From Victor's pechanga.net. . . Martha Foes alarmed by bill to grant land-use powers to Canada's Indians By DAVID CRARY Associated Press Writer TORONTO (AP) - The federal government is moving boldly to give Canada's Indians broad management power over the land on their reservations - too boldly, according to critics who fear the initiative will lead to abuse and conflict. At stake is a bill that would curtail federal involvement in the day-to-day administration of Indian reservations and give sweeping land-management authority to local tribal councils. Supporters depict the bill as a historic step toward meaningful self-government for Canada's 800,000 natives. Critics say there are too few safeguards to prevent local councils from summarily expropriating property, including the homes of thousands of non-Indian residents who lease land on many of the nation's 600 reservations. The bill, now in the Senate after clearing the House of Commons last week, would grant the new land-use powers to 14 Indian communities in six provinces across Canada. Other reservations could follow suit later, assuming powers now exercised by the federal Department of Indian Affairs. "We view this as a very positive step forward," said Kerry Kipping, the department's director of resource initiatives. "It puts the power back where it belongs." Too much power, according to the bill's critics, who include Indian women's groups, non-Indian leaseholders and the right-wing Reform Party. Mike Scott, the Parliament member who handles native affairs for the Reform Party, says the expropriation powers created by the bill exceed those of federal, provincial and municipal governments. A tribal council could expropriate any property on the reservation on 30 days' notice, for any purpose it deemed in the community's interest and any appeal would be judged under rules set by the council, according to Scott. Scott's party - which says it supports the concept of Indian self-reliance - tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill to ensure an independent review of appeals and to restrict expropriations to cases where land was needed for public works projects. Kipping said the tribal councils could work out for themselves the details of their expropriation procedures, and predicted the result would be fair and allow for review by a neutral party. The bill's critics "are not reading it in an unbiased manner - they're talking about the worst case scenario," Kipping said. "I firmly believe these First Nations (Canada's official term for Indian communities) are going to do business in a fair, equitable manner." The bill has been challenged in court by Indian women's groups who say the government should require local councils - often male-dominated - to divide property fairly in the event of divorce. Wendy Lundberg, a member of British Columbia's Squamish tribe, said in a statement submitted to Parliament that women and their children typically lose the family home to the male partner when a marriage breaks up. "The women often have nowhere to live on the reserve, and may end up in the worst circumstances in urban ghettos," Lundberg said. Kipping contended the bill is an improvement over the existing Indian Act, which has no provision for division of matrimonial property. Under the bill, he said, each Indian community would develop rules for property division, with a mechanism allowing federal intervention if no code is adopted in a reasonable time. Critics of the bill say it is likely to fuel more conflicts like the one at Musqueam reservation in Vancouver, where a recent court ruling enabled the tribal council to impose huge rent increases on longtime non-Indian leaseholders. Families who had been paying a few hundred dollars a year in rent suddenly were faced with annual rents of $20,000 or more because a court ruled the tribe could value the land on the same basis as nearby neighborhoods off the reservation. Kerry-Lynne Findlay, who heads an association of Musqueam leaseholders, said the rent increase and the specter of expropriation have been devastating to the leaseholders, whose homes - earlier valued at $300,000 to $400,000 - have become virtually unmarketable. Findlay hopes the Senate will propose amendments to the bill to limit the scope of expropriations. "This is the kind of bill we as Canadians have to live with forever," she said. "All we're trying to do is make it more reasonable. We're not trying to deny aboriginals greater control over their lands." http://www.trib.com/HOMENEWS/FORN/Canada_IndianLand.html &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
