Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
It's usually a settlement of land and cash in lieu of land based on the value of the land today plus its economic value for the past 100 years under the lands "Best use"
The argument in this case is much simpler than the BC cases where there are claims based on traditional grounds. This case is essentially in 1883 the government did a survey based on the population of the reserve and the rules in treaty 7. in I think 1887 they did a second survery based on a later population after starvation and small pox wiped a lot of the population out.
This case will center around which survey met the legal requirements of treaty 7.
|
What is the test for "best use"?
Not all land is suitable for "best use". Not all land holders are capable (or even interested in) "best use" utilization.
I've always thought the "best use" of everyone's efforts now is not to focus on righting past wrongs (what's done is done), but establishing a better path forward. Ultimately, I think trying to maintain the existing reserve structure will do nothing but perpetuate existing issues and conditions and a plan for the dissolution of reserves needs to be formulated.
I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this (clearly), but I would propose an equitable division of land among band members. Individuals are free to hold their land, develop their land, sell their land, assemble larger parcels, conduct land-swaps, etc and the individual is entitled to the entire proceeds from whatever they choose to do with their land... An end date for the existing reserve structure is set, say in a "generation" from now, or 30 years, or something, but there's a set date when the current programs end. Each band can democratically choose whether they wait until the end, or start the process of disbursing land now.
Like I said, this isn't exactly a fully formed idea, but I think a move in this direction beats the hell out of the status quo.