What about mineral rights?
Thu, 2006-11-30 14:27
#1
What about mineral rights?
Thu, 2006-11-30 14:27
#2
I dont usually wade in here because I know nothing about the issues. I do know that anyone with a mouse can claim the land UNDER your land for a minor fee.
this really matters because the only thing stopping them in many areas is concentrated human habitation. So land claims over large areas of crown land could be undermined by underground claims to whatever mineral is there.
And I dont think anyone is stopping those underground claims under disputed land.
WHY? And perhaps you should be buying those rights just in case they are used against you.
I think gordon campbell is being totally ingenuous with native peoples and is not to be trusted in any way.
He will be happy to let harper destroy anything he pretends to achieve and waste your time.
Perhaps someone would like to explain how crown land ends up in private hands. Is there an auction?
Can anyone bid?
Who sets the price?
Thu, 2006-11-30 14:31
#3
Land Claims typically include some recognition of Aboriginal rights to subsurface resources. Land Claim settlements in the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut all include some lands that recognize full subsurface rights as being held by the Aboriginal groups that signed the claims between the federal and territorial governments.
In the South, most land claims include some sort of reserve creation system and lands held under reserve status include subsurface rights. In most of the provinces, if subsurface resources are developed on FN reserve land, the royalties are to be held in capital trust accounts for the First Nation.
It gets complicated pretty fast because there are plenty of issues around this whole thing and Aboriginal people can easily get worked over by the systems that are in place.
Thu, 2006-11-30 20:55
#4
Brian, I have no idea what you mean. Subsurface rights in Canada are governed by pretty cut and dry common law and statues. The Crown owns most of the subsurface/minerals rights in the country. The exceptions that exist generally revolve around the railways because for quite a while they weren't reserving subsurface rights when they sold off pacels. There are other parcels of land with title to subsurface rights that still exist...but that is made clear on the title.
No, people can not go around just buying up subsurface rights...those rights are reserved, again, generally to the Crown.
In terms of Aboriginal lands...the Treaties are specific on surface versus subsurface rights, as well as the types of minerals that are reserved. 'Royal' minerals (gold and silver) are generally always reserved to the Crown. Oil and gas depend, and there is some confusion about certain things like sand/gravel as being a mineral...(the general rule is that unless you have subsurface rights, you only get to scrape off or 'mine' the sand/gravel to a certain depth).
Maybe if you phrase yourself a bit clearer I can go into this more, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
Thu, 2006-11-30 21:36
#5
Once a claims settlement is researched, validated, negotiated and finalized the process of executing an agreement means dealing with willing seller/willing buyer scenarios. This holds true for both land and mineral titles. And then the third party interests on or under the land are usually the responsibility of the First Nation/Trust Corporation to settle prior to land being converted to reserve land. The only place where this may not hold true is on Crown holdings, Provincial or Federal. There’s sometimes a commitment in the settlement agreement to accommodate a claim on these lands. But only where the land and minerals are available. Because certain types of Crown holdings are usually excluded from claims in settlement agreements.
Generally the First Nation has to acquire the minerals where it can afford to. It is complicated and can get muddled. And it can very much depend on which First Nation you talk to about their claims land purchasing process. The Feds and provinces have been trying to standardize the process, for the prairie First Nations that is. But there are different systems in every province when it comes to land and mineral title holdings. The process of reserve creation can get heady for the First Nation.
I get a kick out of the big splashes in the media about how another settlement agreement is finalized. Where the impression is windfall. But the actual work and cost of executing a settlement agreement can take decades after that. Really, talking about minerals is only scratching the surface about the technicalities of satisfying an agreement. Because I haven’t even mentioned tax loss compensation and environmental screening or mitigation processes. I don’t know the BC experience of deciding what land was available for settlement. But on the prairies it can get cumbersome, technical and time consuming.
Fri, 2006-12-01 18:13
#6
quote:
Originally posted by Yiwah:
[b]Brian, I have no idea what you mean. Subsurface rights in Canada are governed by pretty cut and dry common law and statues. The Crown owns most of the subsurface/minerals rights in the country".
Maybe if you phrase yourself a bit clearer I can go into this more, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking.[/b]
In BC people can stake a claim to subsurface rights with a mouse click. (I think it started about a year ago). A reporter for a local newspaper bought some subsurface rights near the saanich fairgrounds recently to highlight it in his article.
I think any of bc that is unclaimed is available this way. (Irrespective of first nations treaty negotiations). (This could be an example of the BC libs removing items off the table before they get discussed)
Fri, 2006-12-01 18:26
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
In BC people can stake a claim to subsurface rights with a mouse click. (I think it started about a year ago).[/b]
Yeah, there was a bit of discussion about it in
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000993]th... thread.
Sun, 2006-12-03 17:39
#8
Huh...learn something new everyday...
Well, I don't see this as much different than what the Crown has often done...passing it's responsibility onto private parties. Land claims aren't as successful when the interests are held by private individuals or corporations because they simply do not have a fiduciary to aboriginal peoples the way the Crown does. However...in terms of lands that are currently being claimed and negotiated, I don't think that the honour of the Crown could stand too much subsurface private speculation...but then again...
Fri, 2006-12-08 18:40
#9
saga
quote:
Originally posted by Yiwah:
[b]Huh...learn something new everyday...Well, I don't see this as much different than what the Crown has often done...passing it's responsibility onto private parties. Land claims aren't as successful when the interests are held by private individuals or corporations because they simply do not have a fiduciary to aboriginal peoples the way the Crown does. However...in terms of lands that are currently being claimed and negotiated, I don't think that the honour of the Crown could stand too much subsurface private speculation...but then again...[/b]
[url=http://www.miningwatch.ca/]http://www.miningwatch.ca/[/url]
Miningwatch doesn't mention this 'twist'!
I tend to agree it's an evasive tactic by the govies.
Fri, 2006-12-29 22:32
#10
[url=http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/12/27/Mining/]http://thetyee.ca/News/2006/12...
thats it from the tyee. the mineral rights are been sold off at 17 cents an acre. (And the big mining companys are giving the BC liberals millions to campaign to be reelected.)
No bluddy wonder!
Sun, 2006-12-31 22:08
#11
So, Wwhat about mineral rights? Perhaps an open discussion on the pros and cons of mineral exploration is in order. Anyone prepared to participate?
Mon, 2007-01-01 03:31
#12
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
[b]So, Wwhat about mineral rights? Perhaps an open discussion on the pros and cons of mineral exploration is in order. Anyone prepared to participate?[/b]
Well, I think 17 cents an acre is pretty cheap, dont you think?
I also think that surface owners should have first dibs, and that any land in dispute (as in land claims) should not have the subsurface rights sold off for a few cents. They should be held back from the fire sale. And why the hell is there a fire sale anyway?
And why are the mining companys giving the government party so much money?
In a normal holy free market, rather than sell a whole bunch at a time, you sell little parcels so as not to flood the market.
It is pretty plain what is going on.
The NDP, if they had any brains, could have a lot of support if they had a sane policy (and well publicized) on mining rights.
People who pay 2 or 300, 000 for 500 sq ft up in the air WILL appreciate the value of land at 17 cents an acre!
Renters will apreciate that their rent on 8 to 900 sq for 1 MONTH could buy the mining rights to guess how much land?
5000 ACRES (for god knows how long)!!!
So, forget renting, go out, claim, and set up a little hut so you can MANAGE your claim.
With 5000 acres to piss in, and 850 a month saved, you wont be complaining!
Brian
Tue, 2007-01-02 19:02
#13
saga
quote:
Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
Well, I think 17 cents an acre is pretty cheap, dont you think?
I also think that surface owners should have first dibs, and that any land in dispute (as in land claims) should not have the subsurface rights sold off for a few cents. They should be held back from the fire sale. And why the hell is there a fire sale anyway?
And why are the mining companys giving the government party so much money?
In a normal holy free market, rather than sell a whole bunch at a time, you sell little parcels so as not to flood the market.
It is pretty plain what is going on.
The NDP, if they had any brains, could have a lot of support if they had a sane policy (and well publicized) on mining rights.
People who pay 2 or 300, 000 for 500 sq ft up in the air WILL appreciate the value of land at 17 cents an acre!
Renters will apreciate that their rent on 8 to 900 sq for 1 MONTH could buy the mining rights to guess how much land?
5000 ACRES (for god knows how long)!!!
So, forget renting, go out, claim, and set up a little hut so you can MANAGE your claim.
With 5000 acres to piss in, and 850 a month saved, you wont be complaining!
Brian[/b]
There is a fire sale because they want to get the mineral rights out of government hands so they won't be available for land claims by Indigenous people. Someone asked Dalton McGuinty why land under claim in Ontario isn't excluded from development (e.g., Caledonia), and he replied that if they did that, there would be no development.
It is pretty clear that they are trying to undermine aboriginwal rightws and titles any way they can, so the money continues to flow to Canadian governments.
Mon, 2007-01-08 21:51
#14
saga
I will just add one thing that may conflict with what has been said above about mineral rights:
The land leases implemented in the 1800's for Six Nations land were only for "a plough's depth". They retained the mineral rights. Aboriginal title, in international law, I believe includes mineral rights. However, to avoid lengthy court cases, some bands may negotiate partnerships.
Crown land is aboriginal title land 'assumed' by the federal government in a variety of devious ways. It has now been downloaded to the provinces (I wonder why?) and development of the land has been further downloaded to the municipalities.(I wonder why?) Then the feds made a law that land cannot be returned if it is no longer in their hands, and development of land proceeds regardless of land claims because they are intentionally kept apart. (Oh, that's why!) This is part of what has made land claims such a morass, and made it necessary for aboriginal groups to reclaim land from development themselves, exactly as happened in Caledonia and now in Tyendinaga.
This persistent campaign on the part of the government becomes clearer as each layer is removed. Successive Canadian governments' intent to retain resource rights but not 'ownership' of the land, to try and bypass land claims, is the biggest white collar crime Canada will ever see!
[ 08 January 2007: Message edited by: saga ]