Evidence of meeting #22 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was community.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
That makes sense, because we were talking about cost certainty for the nation, for the industry you're partnering with.
Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
Exactly.
Conservative
Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
It forces everyone to be serious about what they're doing and getting it done on time. We're strong believers in planning these things out and living up to the obligations that all parties have.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
There was a report in September 2010 called “Impact Evaluation of Contributions to Indian Bands for Land Management on Reserve”. I'm taking this from some of the great work the Library of Parliament has done. It recommended that they incorporate an approval system to streamline processes and increase efficiency. You've already spoken about this, and you can share more insight if you'd like. I was just wondering, were you consulted in that process?
Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
No, we weren't. Certainly we would have had lots to say.
Conservative
Greg Rickford Conservative Kenora, ON
This is the place to do it, so keep going on those critical elements.
Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
We operate a very small unit. We have one lands officer who also substitutes as the membership clerk, so he's registering band members, doing all the land transactions, doing buckshee agreements, working on leases—we have some leases for businesses in the community—juggling all of those things, and really having difficulty.
A number of years ago we used to get funding to do surveying, because surveying is important. But that funding was removed. Without the funding, there are many pieces of land, CP transfers, that are going to be held in limbo because the holders of those CPs don't have the money to do the surveying.
In our community, we have a revolving loan fund for housing. The community participates by giving a base amount, and then the individuals borrow from the band's revolving fund. They have to find their own money. The community contributes about 42% of the actual cost of a house. When they get into a revolving loan fund, they put up their CP lot as kind of a guarantee until that is paid off. But once it's paid off, normally the land should be surveyed to make sure that this is the land agreed on. Unfortunately, the people don't have the means.
We have only 160 full-time employees in the community. We have a lot of seasonal people who depend big-time on EI, so it's difficult to be asking them. That's all catching up with us now, because we've had the revolving loan fund for years. People have paid back their loans—now what do we do? This is what we're struggling with. We believe if resources were allocated, certainly there could be more appropriate planning and finishing up of those surveys.
Conservative
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chief Whiteduck.
I know you reflect a lot of what we've heard across the country, that there is some concern. I think even the communities that have wanted to move forward and out from under the Indian Act have chosen to use the First Nations Land Management Act.
Like Ms. Duncan, I want your reflections on what Mr. Alcantara said. I think you've been very clear that for remote and rural communities this isn't a big advantage. That's the reason I've put forward a motion that this committee needs to travel to Attawapiskat. I don't think fee simple would help that community at all, so we hope we will vote in this meeting to visit that very troubled community.
What I understood from Mr. Alcantara is that people should be allowed to opt into this even without the permission of band council. I'm not sure how that could fit.
Do you think anything they're putting forward would work until you have proper self-government?
Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
Certainly we often hear that what's being brought forward is going to be for communities of the willing. The communities of the willing will get all the funding up front, or institutes will be created for them as long as they're willing to buy into something.
We respect that if a community as a whole wants to move forward in that direction and the membership has been informed, of course it's their decision. But for those communities who don't want that and want to attempt to move in a different direction, we need to also be supported with the necessary resourcing to put those mechanisms in place. That's what I haven't heard up to now.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
In that First Nations Land Management Act, and the communities that are already outside of that are working towards it, a lot of their work is creating the laws of self-government that would confine the council to a set of rules that the community has agreed to.
Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
We don't believe we can truly speak about self-government at a very high level until the issue of our ancestral lands is dealt with. We can't speak about self-government on a small postage-stamp-size of a reserve. It's got to be much broader. The issue of the ancestral lands with the reserve lands has to be part of that larger discussion. Certainly in our case, in a territory that's never been ceded or surrendered and for which there is no treaty, we of course argue an inherent right to the land.
That discussion seems to be so far away from day-to-day lives. That's the other thing, these broad questions of the day-to-day lives of people in the community. I mean, unfortunately—and I have to state this—there are more pressing issues sometimes than some of these.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm going to jump in. I think Mr. Alcantara was trying to respond to your statement as well. I'm wondering if you'd be okay with him jumping in.
Mr. Alcantara, it seemed that you were looking to respond.
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Yes.
On the question of who decides, it's up to the first nation community as a collective to decide whether they want to opt into it. I'm not saying one part of the community should make a decision against the other. The community has to find a way to decide on its own rules whether or not to go into this.
Let me just talk a little about the First Nations Land Management Act. I agree with Chief Whiteduck: the Department of Indian Affairs is extremely slow, and in every community I've spoken to it's the same story.
I don't think the solution is more money to make the Department of Indians Affairs more efficient. I think the solution is things like the First Nations Land Management Act, where the first nation takes responsibility for administering its property rights on reserve. Things like leases, customary rights, and CPs shouldn't involve Indian Affairs. It should be the first nation that is taking care of these approvals on its own. We should be giving the money to the first nations to undertake these activities, not to Indian Affairs to make them more efficient.
Let's transfer the decision-making powers. Get rid of the ministerial discretion and transfer decision-making to the first nations that are willing and interested in doing so, and provide them with the resources. That's what the First Nations Land Management Act does. The fact that more and more first nations are opting into it means there are more and more model land codes, more and more model processes and procedures that first nations can easily borrow and adopt as their own.
That's what I would say.
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
I guess my question would be, then, is it appropriate in terms of the proposed property ownership act? Is it appropriate that bands would choose to do that before they have formal self-government organized in terms of the way the community helps writes the laws before this fee simple could actually provide a checkerboard to the reserve?
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Chief Jules will say that the proposed First Nations Property Ownership Act is in fact about self-government. By gaining title and jurisdiction, what you're in essence doing is giving the first nation the jurisdiction, the self-government, over its land to control it in a much more efficient and locally sensitive way.
The checkerboard analogy is not.... I would suggest that under this proposal, yes, there's that possibility, but you have to remember that by getting title and jurisdiction, the first nation will always own that land, which means that even if non-aboriginal people purchase this land, the land will still be subject to the laws and the regulations of the first nations, which can ensure that this land is still used as part of the community. This also includes provisions for expropriation under certain circumstances.
This is the last thing I'm going to say about the checkerboard thing. Is there a danger that non-aboriginal people will purchase reserve land? Yes, but it's also more likely that band members will go in and acquire this land before non-aboriginal people.
Remember that for the people who are selling this fee simple land, because it's fee simple you can choose who you want to sell it to. In a lot of these first nation communities, because they're postage-stamp-size communities, as the chief is correct to point out, there's usually not enough land for all the members, so there are going to be members who are off reserve who are going to want to purchase this land.
So is there a danger of the checkerboard solution? Yes, but I think the reality of the title and jurisdiction and the reality of how many off-reserve members want to return to the community—
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Is there not a risk that this would prey upon some of the most vulnerable and poorest people, that the option of selling their land is a way out of poverty, without the band council really having any way of making that decision as a collective, as in their traditional ways?
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Well, Chief Jules always talks about this legislation as being the freedom to choose. I think it's paternalistic to say to first nations people, “You're not responsible, you may be preyed upon by people who are seeking...”. I think first nations individuals are smart, they're responsible, and they know how to exercise their rights within this country.
I think this legislation is about creating freedom for first nations members to—
Liberal
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. Yes, I agree. The proposed First Nations Property Ownership Act is not for all first nations. Neither is the First Nations Land Management Act.
There are going to be first nations that will want to remain in the Indian Act, and I think we should support them. If they want to stay in the Indian Act, or if they want to go to other parallel legislation, we should support them and make those frameworks work as best as we can for them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Ms. Bennett, I'll jump in now. I've been liberal with the time on the first opening round. We're going to try to be a little more concise with the time moving forward.
Mr. Alexander, we'll turn it over to you for seven minutes.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you so much.
Chief Whiteduck and Councillor Odjick, it's a privilege to have you here. It's a particular privilege to have you so soon after the crown and first nations gathering, which we all followed very closely, including your own participation, and to have the Kitigan Zibi First Nation with us. I've been in and around Maniwaki many times. It's beautiful country, in no small measure thanks to the way it has been cherished by all of you for centuries.
Chris Alcantara, thanks for your presentation.
I think we all agree, Chief, that the only way to resolve and deepen and entrench property rights as a tool for creating success on reserves is as part of a larger picture that has to include comprehensive land claims, and so forth. I'd like to elucidate some of the forms of property rights Professor Alcantara was talking about to get a sense, for the committee and the broader audience, of what some of the features of first nations property ownership, in particular, might be and how it would change the land tenure situation on reserves.
We know from your testimony, Professor Alcantara, that it would allow land to be registered in a Torrens system. We know that first nations would retain full land management authority. And we know that it would build on the existing property rights provided for in the Indian Act and also in the First Nations Land Management Act.
Tell us more about the potential benefits of fee simple. You talked about transaction costs and the time it takes for band councils and the minister to turn these transactions around and about how costly they are. What kinds of projected benefits do you see for those first nations that embrace this form of property ownership? And tell us more about the zoning, planning, and regulating, which could go alongside this right to hold lands in fee simple, as engines for economic development for the benefit of first nations and the communities they represent.
Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Let me reiterate that this is not for all first nations. It will be for certain first nations, especially those that are in locations that can benefit from the use of fee simple. We're talking about places where there's demand and interest in a first nation's land within the first nation but also outside of it. They would be especially those reserves that are beside cities, for instance, or municipalities. These are places where fee simple ownership could be utilized in a lot of ways.
In many ways, fee simple ownership is simply the more improved version of certificates of possession. It gives stronger property rights on the land to the individual, and it comes with a lot more freedom in what you can do with it. You can transfer it. You can still do that as a CP. You can transfer it within the band. You can get mortgages or loans on the land. You can transfer it to other band members on other reserves from other first nations.
Again, it's not going to be for the entire reserve. You may decide to do just 5% of the reserve or 10% of the reserve. It creates more freedom for individuals to use the land as they wish in more economically sustainable ways.
The first nation will continue to be able to provide all sorts of bylaws and regulations on how they use it, much like how you or I buy a house in a municipality or in the country. We own that land with fee simple, but there are some regulations that ensure that the land is used for what it's meant to be used for. There are some broad regulations with respect to water quality and with respect to what the property should look like.
This is basically freeing up portions of reserve land, where appropriate, that can then be used in ways that are economically superior to the existing property regimes.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
From your research to date, how many first nations do you think would initially be interested in this form of property ownership? Is it 10%? I agree that the proportion on each reserve might differ. But would it be 10%, a quarter, 50%? You obviously haven't polled everyone. But what are the early indications?
How great would the potential impact on access to credit be? This is obviously a big issue. There are mortgages and other forms of credit, as well, with the potential to unlock entrepreneurship in a lot of communities where we know there is potential demand. But without security of tenure, and bankable security of tenure, it's not going to be unlocked.