Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2012

[Chief Robert Louie]

Yes, thank you for that question.

A first nation can do its own drafting, and what we do is encourage that first nation community to retain its own legal counsel for that independent legal advice. They are supported by our resource personnel. They're supported by some of our own legal people if they choose. And of course, the verifier then verifies that particular work to make sure that it conforms with both the legislation and the framework agreement.

So all in all, there is good support in the drafting. It's left to the community, because the community has the leeway to draft its laws the way it sees fit, as long as it conforms to both the framework agreement principles and the First Nations Land Management Act legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Chief.

Dr. Powell.

[Dr. Graham Powell]

I just wanted to add a footnote.

In the funding that Canada provides to the developmental first nations, there is $75,000 a year for a two-year maximum. With that $150,000, the first nation has the opportunity to hire their own legal advice to comment on the land code the community has drafted. We provide advice on the template and the mandatory sections, but the first nation has funding from Canada to obtain its own legal advice, and usually their own lawyers are already there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We go to Mr. Boughen for five minutes.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair. Let me add my voice of welcome to my colleagues and say thanks to the panel for coming.

I'd like to take a minute to talk about the NALMA, the National Aboriginal Land Managers Association, in relation to the resource centre. This training for the first nations at the NALMA centres has a proven track record. How do the resource centre training and focus complement and/or differ from those of the NALMA programs? Could you give us a word or two on that?

[Dr. Graham Powell]

I have a chart we could pull up, which may help you appreciate the differences between NALMA and our organization. If that can be pulled up, then Ruth, Patti, and Elizabeth will speak to it.

[Dr. Elizabeth Childs]

I'll just quickly start this off and then defer to Ruth and Patti, who have actually been through the program.

One thing we did early on in the strategy was prepare a 35-page comparison document comparing the courses offered through the NALMA training and the University of Saskatchewan program, with the competencies required by the framework and what our certification program does. We basically did gap analysis on the two different programs.

What you are seeing here is a very quick one-page summary.

Ruth, if you would like, speak to that a bit further.

[Ruth Nahanee]

Thank you, Elizabeth.

The NALMA training program bases its courses on the Indian Act, and it is administration of lands, whereas our courses' mandate comes from the framework agreement and is about governance—governance authorities, lands management, enforcement, and the whole thing that goes with that.

One of the things the NALMA program offers is that you have to leave your community for two to three weeks at a time, which has caused a lot of stress for lands managers who didn't have someone back at home to replace them. They came home not only to having to do their homework but also to having to carry out their duties, which had piled up.

We offer our own program online, at your own pace and over a period of time. You probably could even do it one day a week, whereas we went away for three weeks and came home and had to do lots of homework. Time-wise, it's nice to be at home and do it in your own community.

The audience for NALMA was just one lands manager per first nation, and after five years you might be allowed to send another one. In our program, it's the lands manager. If they leave, we can just train another one. There's no expense for that person to take it. There's a huge cost difference that comes with it being online rather than face to face They would have to pay for us to fly there, to live in a hotel, and to provide our food and transportation. So there are many differences between the programs.

As someone who has been through the program.... There were a number of us who got together and stated that for these reasons we want to have something like what we've developed, and that's where this strategy came from—to be able to do this.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

The NALMA program has a two-pronged approach from post-secondary institutions. It includes some technical training as well as training in the field work. Is that what we're hearing? Is that right?

[Patti Wight]

Yes, their program has a two-pronged approach.

My feeling in taking the program at the University of Saskatchewan.... It's a wonderful university, but I come from Prince George, and there's a wonderful university there where I took the same courses.

I wasn't able to use prior learning. I had three years in a science degree and I was forced to retake 100-level courses in the program. The cost for both programs was upwards of $30,000. Each person should have a degree for $30,000 or $40,000. That was my feeling about that.

The technical training, which was level two, is all based on the Indian Act. So I spent a lot of time learning things that no longer applied. Why learn some of the same mistakes twice—well, for me it was once—and then go home and realize that it no longer applies, that this legislation is different, and learn a new piece of legislation?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Who designed this, by the way?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm sorry. We've given you some additional time, but you are out of time. I apologize for that.

[Dr. Elizabeth Childs]

May I make a small comment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You may, Dr. Childs.

[Dr. Elizabeth Childs]

Just from an educational perspective, building on Patti's last comment, what that does is introduce cognitive dissonance. You're learning something—you're learning a legislation or learning techniques and practices—under one box of rules and then you have to go home and apply them, but the box of rules is completely different. From a learning perspective, the cognitive dissonance is quite strong, and it impedes people's ability to quickly make the transfer into their new setting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Bevington, you have five minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

The more I delve into this subject, the more I realize how difficult this is for first nations across the country. We've heard testimony from the department that they have 36 people in their land department in Ottawa dealing with issues for 650 reserves on all manner of things that are very complex. I spent a good deal of time in municipal government with land issues, and I know how significant they can be. I know it's going to be different on reserve land, because you still have a collective principle that I think is apparent in most reserves.

How would you characterize that situation in terms of how a land officer deals with situations? When we deal with land ownership, tenure, division of land, and land management in a municipal setting, we're dealing with private land or public land. But in a reserve setting, there's so much collective land.

How does that difference affect your ability to train people to tie that principle into law in different provinces? What's the experience there?

[Ruth Nahanee]

When we speak to the law-making authorities of the first nations that have an enacted land code, we note that they have the authority to make their own law, whether to replace one or to fill a gap. First nations have lands managers who basically have to produce or provide the capacity they have. They need to know, number one, that it's still reserve lands; and number two, that therefore it's still under federal legislation until they build their own first nation law to replace that federal law. Therefore, there's a whole gamut of information that a first nation coming from under the Indian Act has to know to be able to advise or consult their lands committee and council.

I'm not sure I'm answering the question, but it's a very complex situation. Our environmental course—I wish you could see it—is quite amazing. It was developed by four or five environmental experts, an environmental legal person, and a staff person. It is geared to the framework agreement of first nations. There's nothing like it out there, and that is because first nations are able to enact their own laws, and if they do not, they have to still follow federal laws. Land managers have to identify what those federal laws are.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is there a lot of frustration among people who have to do the work in lands management on reserves?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Chief Austin Bear]

Thank you.

Just to answer your question from our perspective of the people of Muskoday, our lands are held collectively by all the members. We have no previous certificates of possession of that nature. However, under our land code, and identified in the land-use plan and the different uses of land, our members have legal, registered interests in lands that are protected by the land code. Interests that, if acceptable, can be mortgaged, for example, for loan funding purposes.

We've had two land managers in my history as the chief. We find no frustrations. We have had disputes, and we have ways and means of mitigating and managing disputes. In comparison, the Indian Act situation is unclear. Interests were sometimes certainly not registered or legal interests. There was more frustration then, because the people weren't certain what their interests were, how they were defined, or how they were registered and protected.

The fact of the matter is that the tools now available through the framework agreement, land codes, and land-use plans are far clearer and far more productive for managing our lands and resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Chief Louie, you wanted to jump in.

[Chief Robert Louie]

Yes, thank you very much.

I know the issue that you raise is with regard to collective rights as a land principle. I want to make sure there's a complete understanding that in the first nation communities there are individual rights and collective rights, and there's a balancing of the two.

In my first nation, for example, at Westbank, we have a lot of what we call “CP” interests. These CP interests are individual rights, and they're balanced with the collective rights. When we're dealing with issues, both are balanced and both are represented equally. It's very clear, too, that third-party interests are also very much respected.

In that whole regime, first nations may differ. There may be band lands in common, which is more the collective version, but even within band land in common there are individual rights and CP interests and things of that nature. So it all balances.

Yes, it's sometimes difficult to work with, but it all works out, because a land code will not be passed by a community unless those rights are protected, and each first nation may be different or have a different approach to reaching that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What would your budget be?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm sorry, Mr. Bevington. Your time is long past. I apologize.

We'll turn to Mr. Wilks for five minutes.

If there is time, I'd certainly hope to get back to—