Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 1st, 2012

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chair, you're eating into my time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You'll get your full five minutes, and if you're like everybody else, you'll get more than that.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Excellent. I appreciate that.

Certainly I've seen first-hand what first nations land management can do in the province of British Columbia. Although Westbank is not under first nations land management, what you've done there is just unbelievable. It truly is.

I'm more excited about the 18 new first nations that are coming under first nations land management. Two, St. Mary's and Shuswap, are in the Kootenay—Columbia constituency. So if you ever come out to St. Eugene to golf, I'll go with you.

I understand there is about $3 million in federal funding to build capacity, and that has been provided over the past 10 years or so. Can you see an opportunity at some point in time whereby that capacity-building would become more self-reliant, and can you see how this might happen?

[Dr. Graham Powell]

In referring to the $3 million, could you clarify? It certainly didn't come to us.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The $3 million was supposed to be funnelled from the federal government into building capacity. If you didn't get it, I'll find out where it went, but that's what I am informed.

[Dr. Graham Powell]

I know that in the previous Treasury Board authority, there was $500,000 a year set aside for five years. I think we saw about $350,000 at one point early on, and that was the end of it. Our amount of funding in our budget for next year amounts to $85,000.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

That's a far cry from $3 million, so we'll have to fix that.

[Dr. Graham Powell]

Yes.

Going back to a question that the gentleman from Quebec raised earlier about Canada's obligation under the framework agreement, it's to facilitate first nations, through the transition process, to leave the Indian Act. Now they're going out under their land codes, and we have to do the transition. Our role is to help them build the capacity to do so. If Canada doesn't support the training and the capacity-building, then it's not meeting its obligation under the framework.

In all of our discussions there's a desire to contribute; it's simply been for lack of resources. We're optimistic that by 2013-14, perhaps we'll be able to get the funding we need to finish all of our land governance courses.

But whoever got the $3 million, I hope they used it wisely.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I hope they did, too.

What do you see as some of the most challenging parts of moving forward under the capacity-building, but not from a perspective of finances? If finances weren't the issue, what would you see as the most important thing you need to expound to communities to say: “This is what you really need to focus on, and this is how you need to get there”, and “We want to try to make that happen, but this is the most important”?

[Dr. Graham Powell]

It's getting them access to the virtual resource centre, the meeting place, so that each first nation lands governance director can communicate with all the others who are from signatory first nations. We have 36 that are operational. Each of those lands governance directors has to be able to go online to the meeting place, put in a question, and get answers immediately. It's that constant contact.

So it's not frustration; it's just making sure that this is there and available.

Perhaps Elizabeth, Patti, or Ruth would like to add. Once you take funding out of the question, the only frustration is.... We can't move fast enough at the moment for lack of funding, but I'm sure the funding will be there in the future.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Right. Okay.

[Dr. Elizabeth Childs]

From my perspective, if funding is not in the equation, there are two challenges. One is that since post-secondary institutions are not necessarily quick, the accreditation discussions will take some time.

For many of our lands governance directors, accreditation is an excellent byproduct, but it's not the reason they want to do it. They want to do it because they need the information to do their job every day. I think that's one of the issues.

The other is internal capacity to actually write all the content. If the lid came off the money jar tomorrow and we could go, we have quite a bit stockpiled already, which you saw on the slides with bracketed dates beside them. If we get funding, we'll put this online, but we have quite a bit more to write that is specific to the framework agreement. There are only a handful of people in Canada who can actually write the content, and that is a challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilks.

Ms. Hughes, you have five minutes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of questions for you with respect to the fact that a lot of this is online. Are there challenges right now with broadband infrastructure? Are there voids? I'm trying to get some sense of this.

[Dr. Elizabeth Childs]

I can speak to that a little bit. We were talking about that just this morning.

One of the things we're doing in the meeting place as one of our first polls is to get an accurate read on infrastructure in our framework agreement first nations. It's something that's been very difficult for Canada generally to do, not just across first nations communities, but even to get a general reading of the average Canadian's accessibility.

All of what we have referred to as being online can also be delivered on a USB stick or on a CD. For communities that are having difficulty, it's been designed to be at the minimal technology level. Basically, at a little higher than the speed of dial-up connection, you'll still be able to access all of these resources. The reality is that some of them would be slow. In communities where this is their reality and they don't have turbo sticks from Bell that allow them to get into the cloud, we would be sending out USB keys. In fact, at not the last but the previous AGM, we gave everyone there a USB wristband, and it had some of the courselet content as well as some of the documentation.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Cotler earlier talked about Regional Chief Angus Toulouse. I think we need to be clear here. Basically, he's talking about the communities that have actually signed on. We're hearing those communities say that what is happening in their case is that they initially built the capacity and they need that capacity to be maintained and sustained.

Then he goes on to talk about the fact that there are 133 first nations communities in Ontario, and only six have been able to take advantage of this piece of legislation and policy. He says that says a lot.

Because some of you have already signed on to the lands management process, I'm wondering whether you have any recommendations to improve the process itself and the transition process. We've heard on a number of occasions that it's very timely. Have you experienced that from the start to the end—being able to get into the program, first of all, and then the transition as a whole? And do you have any other recommendations to the committee as to what you might need or what we should be doing to ensure that everything is in place?

[Dr. Graham Powell]

I think the recent announcement by the deputy minister to open it up to another 100 indicates a desire to find the funding. That will certainly speed it up for those who are on the waiting list.

Also, the fifth amendment to the framework agreement is coming forward. I believe it will be introduced before you recess in June, and we hope to have passage.

The stumbling block for first nations has been that if there was an outstanding land issue, it stopped the individual agreement from being signed between Canada and the first nation. The vote was halted. Now, because of the rewording that was put in, Canada and the first nation are allowed to deal with that land issue after the vote, with a commitment by Canada in the individual agreement to definitely deal with that issue.

So you won't have first nations that take three to five years to go through the process. Actually, 24 months would be an unusual amount of time. You're going to see first nations go through in six to twelve months. That again will expedite the process.

As for more first nations coming in, the minister challenged Chief Louie and Chief Bear to come up with other ways of entry. They pursued group entry, whereby two to three first nations could come together and share the resources of one first nation. That's going on in Stó:lõ in the Chilliwack area. It's being considered in Ontario by the first nations up Highway 69, because of all the development going on. I expect that up in Treaty 3, this idea of grouping might come together. It's going to be discussed in the Saskatoon Tribal Council.

So grouping is yet another way. The feasibility of a number of first nations from a treaty area coming together and getting a block piece of funding is another option.

The minister has challenged the LAB to come up with some creative ways, and the response has gone back. I think that if there is a willingness to open it to 100, you'll see many ways for first nations to come in. It was exciting news to have the deputy minister announce 100 more first nations. Part of that was in response to the Crown-First Nations Gathering in Ottawa, which was so successful on a number of points.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Dennis Bevington]

Thank you. I'll move on to Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Chief Bear, it's nice to meet you. Welcome.

Chief Louie, it's good to see you again. It is getting to be a nice habit to have you here.

Welcome to all your colleagues. It's really important that we hear your comments and presentations to help us in our study. It's a really important study. As I was saying earlier to Chief Bear, it is really exciting to see what's happening in terms of development on first nations.

I want to start off by saying that there are some nations, such as Westbank, Chief Louie, who have moved out of first nations lands management and on to more comprehensive self-government arrangements. We have seen some of that.

My question would be: do you see first nations going into first nations lands management as a stepping stone to moving on towards self-government? Or do you see first nations staying in that first nations lands management over the next number of years?

[Chief Robert Louie]

By all means, we do. I think that's evident.

Recently, just as an example in British Columbia, I understood the Premier's announcement to be that the process for such things as treaty negotiations, which include a component of self-government, is flawed. It's not working. The Premier at the provincial level is looking at how else things can work. We're now hoping that this is an alternative.

And yes, we see this as a stepping stone. We envisioned that back in 1996 when the framework agreement principles were put forward. There was a clause put forward in that framework agreement that proposed that there would be other regimes to allow the furtherance of self-governance, and in fact that's what we're seeing.

We have two right now of the 37 that are operational who have moved on: my community and Tsawwassen. Now, with the framework agreement, signing on to self-government by the community in Saskatoon—Chief Darcy Bear's community—they too will hopefully be self-governing. I and others see this as truly a stepping stone and one way to get moving.

The most important aspect of self-governance is land and resource management. Once you have that through such things as this process for the land code, you already have the base component for self-governance. It's truly the most important part of self-governance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Chief Bear.

[Chief Austin Bear]

Thank you.

Robert mentioned the Whitecap Dakota First Nation.

Thank you, Robert.

Chief Darcy Bear just recently initialed the self-governance agreement with the minister. For Muskoday also, we consider the first nations land management and that sectorial self-government as a stepping stone. We've begun, over the past year, our official and initial discussions with Canada—with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the new department. In those discussions on self-government, we believe we have all the components necessary to make the transition to full self-government.

My question to government in Canada is why does it...? It shouldn't need to take 15 years to make those negotiations and enter into self-government agreements with first nations who meet all of the requirements—not only Canada's requirements, but the requirements of the first nation. It shouldn't take 15 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You have one more minute.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

[Dr. Graham Powell]

I have one thing to add to the answers that the chiefs have given. There's no need to redo the land code. Once you have done the land code, as Chief Louie did, you just move your land code over to your—in Chief Louie's case, his governance structure. It's the same with Whitecap Dakota. You don't need to redo the land code; you've done it. You just move it over. If there are other blocks, say in education, or if there should be one down the road in health, you just move that block over. That's one of the beauties of it.