In fact, some say it won’t help those communities most in need and is unnecessary for more prosperous First Nations.
Carolynn Constant, the housing manager at Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Manitoba, which has been held up by the government as an example of a successful community where many members own their own homes, said while many people own their dwellings, the majority of them are “not ready” to own their own land.
“We’ve got 35 per cent on social assistance, some reserves have 90 per cent — how would they be able to deal with a prospector who comes knocking?”
Currently, with a few exceptions, reserves are Crown-owned land where, according to the Indian Act, “it is unlawful for any Indian to own land.” The land is “held in trust” by the federal government for the collective benefit of the whole community. Every initiative — from education and health care to housing and business ventures — must first be approved by the band council, with a final signature from the minister of aboriginal affairs and northern development.
Proponents of a private property scheme say that puts too much power in the hands of the council and makes it hard for individuals to get bank loans because the lender cannot seize the property if the borrower defaults.
The idea of introducing private property ownership to First Nations — which was originally championed by the former chief of T’kemlups Indian Band, Manny Jules, and is likely to surface as a bill next year in the House of Commons — would allow interested communities to divide their land, giving each member a plot, with the goal of providing them with collateral to get a mortgage or take out a small-business loan.
However, experts say banks are unlikely to lend money to someone without a job — even if they’ve got land. Still, the latest census numbers show a growing number of aboriginal homeowners are already successfully “working around the Indian Act” to secure loans from major banks for homes and small businesses.
Chinyere Eni, national director for aboriginal markets for Royal Bank and a member of Little Pine First Nation in Saskatchewan, said while Royal Bank is neither for nor against the idea of private property ownership on reserves, owning property alone is not enough to get a loan.
The most important factor is whether the applicant has the ability to pay back the loan — namely, whether they have an income.
Eni said the issue is most severe in rural and remote communities because employment rates are lower and therefore getting loans is more difficult. The exception, she said, is if the community partners with a local natural resource company that promises to employ members, or if the community itself can develop the resources on its land.
“Even if tomorrow the light switch changed and (private property) ownership was possible, without employment, without income, opportunity to buy that land or leverage it for borrowing against another loan is still going to be a challenge,” said Eni.
While home ownership on reserves is still far below that of communities in the rest of Canada, the number of homeowners is growing. According to the 2006 Census, about 31 per cent of aboriginal households on reserve reported that they owned their home, up from 26 per cent in 1996.
In 2009, researchers from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. looked at eight communities across the country that had achieved some level of home ownership on reserve. Present in each case were employment opportunities, determined leadership, community involvement and education and comprehensive homegrown housing policies. Many communities have developed long-term leasing options whereby a lender could take over the lease if a borrower defaulted on payments but the land would still be under band control.
However, according to independent consultant John Graham, while options may exist for homeowners, when it comes to small business ventures, current mechanisms favour projects promoted by the band leadership, rather than by individual entrepreneurs — something he said a private property scheme could change.
He said existing loan programs and equity funds are much smaller than what would be available to business-minded members of First Nations if they were able to leverage their land.
Graham said the fact that Jules’ scheme would be optional is important because there are undoubtedly areas where the plan might not be welcome. But, he said, “just because it wouldn’t work in one area doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be available for others.”
Constant, who has owned three businesses in Opaskwayak, said the band council holds too much power over everything that happens on-reserve “from who gets an education to who gets to start their own business. . . . They even decide who gets a house and where they live,” she said. However, while she doesn’t like the way the system runs now, she’s not sure that private property would solve the underlying problems her community faces.
“Our people need skills and jobs before they suddenly get a piece of land.”
For its part, the Assembly of First Nations — which represents the views of chiefs from across the country — passed a resolution in 2010 rejecting the notion of private property ownership on reserve.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: TERESA SMITH
No comments:
Post a Comment