Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you again.
As you may recall, when I appeared before you last May I told you that I had spent more than 20 years in the Department of Indian Affairs, most of that time as an assistant deputy minister, so I have some familiarity with the topic that you're studying. However, my knowledge is not absolutely current.
I had the benefit of listening to the panel before me, and so, unfortunately, most of the points I was going to make have already been made much more eloquently than I can make them.
I'll briefly make three points, though. First is the obvious one. You may have thought of this before, but the fact of Indian land has been a central aspect of first nations in this country. I think an argument could be made that without the protection of the Indian Act, first nations as they appear today—as vibrant, intact entities—probably wouldn't exist. The notion of the Indian Act and Indian land has been with us for a long time and has been central to the history of first nations.
The question you're studying now is what standards should be used if that Indian land is going to be leased to someone else—generally speaking, to non-Indians. The Indian Act, as you know, doesn't allow land to be used by non-Indians except through the permission of the crown.
I would argue that if a first nation is proposing to give up its land absolutely—for ever and a day, what's called a “surrender” under the Indian Act—the bar should be very high. This is collectively held land, and therefore it's legitimate that there be a high bar and that no changes be contemplated in the Indian Act. I would agree with that.
The decision on leasing is a separate matter, though. Leased land does not disappear from the land base of the community; it's simply an allocation to someone else to use it for a period of time, and it reverts to the first nation after the lease ends.
Land is a commodity that is necessary for economic development, as Manny Jules pointed out to you. The timing of economic development is a very significant factor. I've heard complaints many, many times from first nations about the difficulties in getting things done in a timely fashion. I would agree that anything that is going to speed up the process at all is a good thing. I would lend my support to that amendment.
The last point I would make—and it's one that was alluded to by others, although maybe not as directly—is that I wonder whether these amendments really go far enough, in the sense that they still require the minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development to approve a referendum. I think it might be time for the committee to think about throwing off the vestiges of colonialism and transferring that fiduciary duty from the federal crown to the first nations themselves.
This is obviously a complicated question, and it would require a fair bit of analysis and study, but I think the notion of the designation really raises it. Once a first nation has decided that they want to lease the land, on what basis should the minister second-guess that first nation? If they have done things through due process and followed norms of advice and involvement, I think the committee may want to say that perhaps it should be left to the first nation and that the crown can remove itself from the decision.
Those are my opening comments, Mr. Chairman.