Private Property vs. Public Property

BLOCK 1:  Aaron, Caylie

Define the following terms and relate to the case study.

a. private property:  

Something, especially land or property, that belongs to a specific individual or company instead of the government.

b. public property:  

Property and land owned by the government, rather than an individual.

c. White Paper (1969): 

The purpose of the White Paper Policy was to dismantle the Indian Act, which ended special policies between Aboriginal Peoples' and the Canadian Government. This policy was met with opposition by Aboriginal leaders as it removed the special priveledge with the Canadian Government.

d. Metis scrip: 

The Metis Scrip was an act created by the Canadian Government in 1870 which issued documents redeemable for land or money.

Summary of Issue/case study:

The Canadian government has passed a law allowing the privatisation of Indigenous Reserve Land. Indigenous peoples feel that the allowing of private property on their traditional land is an imposing of a Western worldview on their bands. Only 11 out of 600 bands accepted the bill's terms. 

Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:  

Our position on the issue is that we are in favour of the privatisation of Property. We believe that private property is only beneficial to the Indigenous people, especially since the idea of Private Property is purely optional.

Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not? 

BLOCK 1: Riley and Peyton

Define the following terms and relate to the case study.

a. private property:  legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.

b. public property:  property that is dedicated to the use of the public.

c. White Paper (1969): Removed First Nation's unique legal status under the Indian act and would “enable the Indian people to be free,” develop a culture on equal ground with other Canadians. 

d. Metis scrip: A system designed in 1870 that issued documents redeemable for land or money was given to Metis in the west in exchange for land rights. 

Summary of Issue/case study: As of 2013 the Harper government has begun the slow movement toward having the concept of private property introduced onto the reserve system. For many first nations, this is a far cry from what they want to see done with their land, they view this as detrimental in a way. The collective laws and fear of a return of having their rights taken out from under them in the way the Metis script or White Paper would have. To many of these individuals; private property is yet another attempt at a way to assimilate the First Nations people and this is a strong opinion with only 11 out of the 600 bands asked were interested. No this does not mean that land cannot be owned and leased on reserve, it can be. While outsiders seek to have private property to create a form of stability to allow First Nations to better enter the job market, the concept of owning a house like many other Canadians can be terrifying. Some still choose to lease land but it is four times more expensive to rent on reserve then off. The possible potential of private property is a very pleasing looking financial option on a societal stage. It is doomed to fall through and the stakes are too stilted to benefit or work in favor of the people who should be benefiting but many within the communities fear it will fall through and create an even bigger gap. 

Group's Opinion on Issue/case study:   The bill ended up being proposed at the wrong time as in 2008 the Canadian government had only just begun apologizing for the wrong that had been imposed on the Indigenous peoples. We believe that it had good intentions but when it was proposed, the Indigenous peoples were still being wronged by the Canadian government. Private property should not be imposed on the Indigenous peoples yet, because their culture is communal and they live off the land as a collective. As soon as private property is proposed the Indigenous peoples lose their communal identity. It could also undermine communities' power and make the money of private property a possible cover-up for larger socio-economic issues that we are refusing to repair. 

Did your group reach a consensus? Why or why not?