New Brunswick Election

[TitleRequired]

If elected, she said several lawsuits the government currently has before the courts would be taken off the table.

Higgs called on the Liberal leader to clarify if she is referring to land claims launched by Wolastoqey and Mi’kmaq communities.

“If so, this would be the most expensive election promise in New Brunswick history,” Higgs told reporters. https://www.country94.ca/2024/10/04/...mall-business/

That is a fair question affecting all property owners.

[shacklebolt]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

If elected, she said several lawsuits the government currently has before the courts would be taken off the table.

Higgs called on the Liberal leader to clarify if she is referring to land claims launched by Wolastoqey and Mi’kmaq communities.

“If so, this would be the most expensive election promise in New Brunswick history,” Higgs told reporters. https://www.country94.ca/2024/10/04/...mall-business/

That is a fair question affecting all property owners.

The folks behind the land claim have been quite explicit in stating that a legal win would not affect private land owners, just the companies that are identified in the claim, and possibly would trigger a negotiation between the government(s) and the First Nations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...laim-1.6267718

The change to the lawsuit puts the legal action on two tracks, seeking compensation from governments for the loss of some parts of the territory, but claiming ownership of the parts used by industry.

"Aboriginal title on the traditional lands ... does not seek to displace regular New Brunswickers from their homes and farms," the chiefs say in a news release.

But winning clear recognition of title for land used by industry would make the Wolastoqey landlords and give them final say in how the companies harvest wood there. They would also be able to receive some or all of the royalties that now go to government.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by shacklebolt

The folks behind the land claim have been quite explicit in stating that a legal win would not affect private land owners, just the companies that are identified in the claim, and possibly would trigger a negotiation between the government(s) and the First Nations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...laim-1.6267718

When the government motioned to change the scope of the lawsuit accordingly, the chiefs acted otherwise.

Press releases don’t count in a court of law, opposing reasonable motions do.

[shacklebolt]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

When the government motioned to change the scope of the lawsuit accordingly, the chiefs acted otherwise.

Press releases don’t count in a court of law, opposing reasonable motions do.

There's a whole thread on Twitter that went through all of this when it happened: https://x.com/poitrasCBC/status/1466412924516421635



"Strangers to the Claim" means anyone not named in the claim. Also, literally all of the parcels of land that are referenced in the claim (500+ pages) are either Crown Land or owned by one of the companies named in the claim.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by shacklebolt

There's a whole thread on Twitter that went through all of this when it happened: https://x.com/poitrasCBC/status/1466412924516421635



"Strangers to the Claim" means anyone not named in the claim. Also, literally all of the parcels of land that are referenced in the claim (500+ pages) are either Crown Land or owned by one of the companies named in the claim.

Poitras. lol.

Regardless of if the case includes “strangers” or not; the court will decide. Higgs statement is still true — what legal liability is incurred if Holt discontinues the proceedings?

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The provincial Liberals serve three masters:

1) - the Irvings (both major parties serve the Irvings, perhaps in slightly different ways, but, both parties know that the strength of the provincial economy rests firmly on the Irving group of companies. They won't do anything to really piss them off).
2) - the SAANB. Being from Saint John, you probably don't feel this very much, but, in northern and eastern NB, the SAANB has a real and palpable influence on who the Liberal candidate in most ridings is (except in the handful of ridings where the Acadian population is less than 25%).
3) - the federal Liberals. Yes, Don Dominic is indeed the godfather of the party, both federally and provincially. I'm sure that Susan Holt has his tacit support because he knows that it is important that at the present time it is very important that the provincial Liberal leader must be a (bilingual) anglophone. He will have made very sure that she is profoundly supportive of Acadian concerns.

Pardon me if I take what you’re saying with a big grain of salt considering you’ve already stated your likely intention to vote PC I don’t see a lot of sources cited here, but it seems like a mostly reasonable analysis.

Thank God the SAANB doesn’t have that influence here in SJ. But Higgs has been in power for six years now, but under Gallant’s government Saint John got a lot more preferential treatment compared to from Higgs who actually lives in the Saint John region. So I’m not exactly “effrayéd” to vote for the Liberals.

The problem with Higgs is that he seems to primarily see Saint John as a place for the Irvings and industry, while SJ being a city where people want to live seems to be an afterthought for him and his government. He couldn’t even deliver on tax reform, which he had specifically promised. I dgaf that he didn’t deliver on his promise to learn French, but I do care that he cut off the financial aid package to Saint John, which is needed due to the archaic tax code and decade of exodus to the bedroom communities where he lives.

I guess is far too late at this point, but NB perhaps should have just been split into two provinces, instead. I don’t think the solution is to vote for the PCs tho, i think the solution is for Anglophone city dwellers to get more involved with the Liberals, because it’s abundantly clear that the PC party is beholden to the interests of rural NB and bedroom communities outside of NB’s big cities.

Holt’s Liberals want to empower municipalities and improve their relationship with the provincial government, while Higgs seems to be plugging his ears while claiming that he’s listening. I don’t think Susan Holt is beholden to the interests of the SAANB, and I believe she will deliver on her promises. Higgs I can’t trust a single thing he says… he’s a classic neoconservative— he can’t be judged on what he says, but what he does. And so far what’s he’s mostly done in six years is lie, sew discord, and break promises. He’s been a terrible premier for Saint John, and it’s in our best interest to send a strong message to the PCs by voting for a majority of Liberals this time. It’s not out of the realm of possibility.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by shacklebolt

There's a whole thread on Twitter that went through all of this when it happened: https://x.com/poitrasCBC/status/1466412924516421635



"Strangers to the Claim" means anyone not named in the claim. Also, literally all of the parcels of land that are referenced in the claim (500+ pages) are either Crown Land or owned by one of the companies named in the claim.

I take no solace in the fact the FNs and their legal counsel consider regular landowners "strangers to the claim". They still want compensation from the government for all the lands "stolen" by these innocent "strangers".

What level of compensation do they want?

- compensation based on the value of these lands back when the peace and friendship treaties were signed in the 1700s.?
- compensation based on the unimproved value of the lands today?
- or, compensation based on the "improved" value of these properties today? ie - the value of the land and any buildings built on those properties.

I have little doubt the FNs will go after the improved value of these properties, which will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars (every single privately owned parcel of land in the province with or without houses or structures built on them). And, this does not include the fact they want the crown lands back, and, they also want all the land belonging to the large corporate landowners back.

There are only about 15,000 FN people living in the province (about 2% of the population). They seek a settlement that will give them hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, and, full control of well over half the land in the province. They would bankrupt us.

Higgs is right to fight this tooth and nail. He needs to adopt a strategy to delay this process and exhaust the will of the first nations litigants until they come up with a much more reasonable proposal.

It sounds like Holt's solution is to capitulate............

[sailor734]

Another 338Canada update yesterday (probably factoring the recent Mainstreet poll)
Now has a seat projection of PC 24 Lib 23 Gr 2

He has moved SJ Harbour into the tossup/Liberal column while Portland remains tossup/PC

He's also showing tossups but with 6-4 odds of both Coon and Holt winning their respective seats in Fredericton


In this case I think the total seat projections are becoming a bit meaningless as overall it is pretty much a dead heat with everything within the margin of error.

I think the only prediction likely to be right is that if somebody does get a majority it is liable to be only by a seat or two.......and it's about 50-50 whether that might be the Liberals or the PC's
Obviously that is with the caveat that there is no earth shattering surprise in the next two weeks........photos of Higgs in drag in a gay bar? Holt partying in blackface with Trudeau?

Nothing to base this on other than a hunch but he may be overestimating Green. If it is less than projected, that might help the Liberals.

[shacklebolt]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I take no solace in the fact the FNs and their legal counsel consider regular landowners "strangers to the claim". They still want compensation from the government for all the lands "stolen" by these innocent "strangers".

What level of compensation do they want?

- compensation based on the value of these lands back when the peace and friendship treaties were signed in the 1700s.?
- compensation based on the unimproved value of the lands today?
- or, compensation based on the "improved" value of these properties today? ie - the value of the land and any buildings built on those properties.

I have little doubt the FNs will go after the improved value of these properties, which will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars (every single privately owned parcel of land in the province with or without houses or structures built on them). And, this does not include the fact they want the crown lands back, and, they also want all the land belonging to the large corporate landowners back.

There are only about 15,000 FN people living in the province (about 2% of the population). They seek a settlement that will give them hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, and, full control of well over half the land in the province. They would bankrupt us.

Higgs is right to fight this tooth and nail. He needs to adopt a strategy to delay this process and exhaust the will of the first nations litigants until they come up with a much more reasonable proposal.

It sounds like Holt's solution is to capitulate............

I guess all I'll say is that what you've outlined above is, I think, the result of looking at this through a colonial lens. You (I'm using the general "you", not necessarily just you, MonctonRad) expect the FN group & counsel to "go after" all of those things because that's how a settler or settler government would do (and does do!) things.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by shacklebolt

I guess all I'll say is that what you've outlined above is, I think, the result of looking at this through a colonial lens. You (I'm using the general "you", not necessarily just you, MonctonRad) expect the FN group & counsel to "go after" all of those things because that's how a settler or settler government would do (and does do!) things.

I hope you are correct, but, paragraph 1(c) clearly states that the FNs seek compensation for the lands occupied by the "strangers" to the claim. They may seek this compensation from the government, but, this money just doesn't appear magically out of thin air. The government would have to generate this compensation via increased taxation, which means from you and me.

The statement of claim does not indicate anywhere what level of compensation the FNs are seeking, and as such, there is a lot of fear regarding this. Perhaps if the FNs told us exactly in simple terms how much money they want, and what percentage of the crown lands they want back, then we could begin to have a reasonable discussion and come to a reasonable settlement satisfactory to all.

Right now the claim is open ended and leaves the impression they want 100% of NB back, either in terms of land title, or in terms of compensation in lieu of title. This is what is causing the concern.

[sailor734]

1

[TitleRequired]

I guess all I'll say is that what you've outlined above is, I think, the result of looking at this through a colonial lens. You (I'm using the general "you", not necessarily just you, MonctonRad) expect the FN group & counsel to "go after" all of those things because that's how a settler or settler government would do (and does do!) things.

This friends is exactly the craziness that is being pumped out of universities. Made up definitions for settler, colonialism, etc.

Settler status at best extends to one generation, unlike what the poster suggests that it has infinite duration.

One wouldn’t be surprised on how many people would not subscribe to either the definition nor the implied victim hierarchy suggested by the poster.

[sailor734]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

This friends is exactly the craziness that is being pumped out of universities. Made up definitions for settler, colonialism, etc.

Settler status at best extends to one generation, unlike what the poster suggests that it has infinite duration.

One wouldn’t be surprised on how many people would not subscribe to either the definition nor the implied victim hierarchy suggested by the poster.

^This

[shacklebolt]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

This friends is exactly the craziness that is being pumped out of universities. Made up definitions for settler, colonialism, etc.

Settler status at best extends to one generation, unlike what the poster suggests that it has infinite duration.

One wouldn’t be surprised on how many people would not subscribe to either the definition nor the implied victim hierarchy suggested by the poster.

Ok boomer.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by shacklebolt

Ok boomer.

None of the above. Ad hominem much?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by shacklebolt

Ok boomer.

Very intelligent rebuttal. I guess this is par for the course if you are a recent graduate of certain liberal arts programs such as sociology, political science or women's studies. Critical thinking and debating skills worthy of Cicero are not the forte of these programs.

TitleRequired makes a valid point. At what point in time do we stop being considered "settlers" by the FNs? When can we be considered native North Americans just as much as the FNs? My own family can trace continued occupancy in North America for over 200 years. My children (through my wife's side) can trace continued occupancy as far back as over 400 years ago (via Rhode Island). Her ancestors arrived within a dozen years of the Mayflower.

Are my children still settlers????

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I hope you are correct, but, paragraph 1(c) clearly states that the FNs seek compensation for the lands occupied by the "strangers" to the claim. They may seek this compensation from the government, but, this money just doesn't appear magically out of thin air. The government would have to generate this compensation via increased taxation, which means from you and me.

The statement of claim does not indicate anywhere what level of compensation the FNs are seeking, and as such, there is a lot of fear regarding this. Perhaps if the FNs told us exactly in simple terms how much money they want, and what percentage of the crown lands they want back, then we could begin to have a reasonable discussion and come to a reasonable settlement satisfactory to all.

Right now the claim is open ended and leaves the impression they want 100% of NB back, either in terms of land title, or in terms of compensation in lieu of title. This is what is causing the concern.

You can not give them one percent of the land. If you do they will see us as weak and will just simply say that this is a good first victory as a starting point. Later they will want more and keep chipping!

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

You can not give them one percent of the land. If you do they will see us as weak and will just simply say that this is a good first victory as a starting point. Later they will want more and keep chipping!

Any negotiated settlement must be binding and must be final.

Of course the FNs require some compensation for the loss of their traditional territories, but, substantially less than the 100% they desire.

The FNs desire self governance, which in the end, will likely be at an enhanced municipal and sub provincial level. They no doubt want control of policing, some aspects of justice, an independent (on reserve) educational and health care system as well as FN controlled social services. This can likely be negotiated, and, provisions should be made so that the FNs have the financial resources to look after these delegated powers. Some cash compensation is probably necessary, but in the hundreds of millions, not the hundreds of billions. They also need some transfer of land title to give them the ongoing resources to finance their governmental responsibilities. This could come entirely from crown lands, but, perhaps in the range of 10-12% rather than 80-100%. This would be fair and reasonable. NB belongs to all New Brunswickers, not just to the 2% who claim indigenous ancestry.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

This is exactly the type of divisive distraction Higgs would like people to be talking about. I agree it’s ridiculous to call modern day Canadians settlers, but it’s undeniable that Canada is a result of a lot of colonial violence.

I think healthcare, education, housing, and affordability are far bigger election issues than First Nations lands claims. We all know how these cases will works out in the end.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Any negotiated settlement must be binding and must be final.

Of course the FNs require some compensation for the loss of their traditional territories, but, substantially less than the 100% they desire.

The FNs desire self governance, which in the end, will likely be at an enhanced municipal and sub provincial level. They no doubt want control of policing, some aspects of justice, an independent (on reserve) educational and health care system as well as FN controlled social services. This can likely be negotiated, and, provisions should be made so that the FNs have the financial resources to look after these delegated powers. Some cash compensation is probably necessary, but in the hundreds of millions, not the hundreds of billions. They also need some transfer of land title to give them the ongoing resources to finance their governmental responsibilities. This could come entirely from crown lands, but, perhaps in the range of 10-12% rather than 80-100%. This would be fair and reasonable. NB belongs to all New Brunswickers, not just to the 2% who claim indigenous ancestry.

Which goes back to the assertion from Higgs that this could be the most expensive election promise; regardless how the costs are portioned out.