Evidence of meeting #50 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 indian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you so much, Chief.
We will now turn to Ms. Irons for her opening statement.
November 19th, 2012 / 4:40 p.m.
Leona Irons Executive Director, National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association
We'd like to begin by honouring and acknowledging the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. We'd like to thank the standing committee for inviting us to speak today. We look upon this as an opportunity to create awareness of raising professional standards in first nations land management and draw attention to the need for land management capacity in sustaining economic development.
In addition, we'd like to clarify our position related to Bill C-45, in that we are specifically addressing division 8, clauses 206 to 209 amendments, and with respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act amendments proposed in Bill C-38, which Bill C-45 clarifies. We share the same concerns expressed by the Assembly of First Nations in relation to those amendments.
My name is Leona Irons, and I'm the executive director of the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association. Today I have with me Wanda McGonigle, who's a NALMA director and the chair for our Ontario Aboriginal Lands Association. Our NALMA chairman, Gino Clement, sends his regrets, as he's unable to attend.
I want to give a background of our organization to validate our appearance here. The National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association was officially formed in 2000 as a non-profit, non-political organization. NALMA is a technical organization driven by first nations land management professionals, and we receive our funding support from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. We have a membership of eight regional land associations with 127 first nations and Inuit community memberships at large, namely in the Atlantic, the Quebec and Labrador region, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nunavut, and British Columbia. We also have some associate members.
Our members operate under various land regimes. We manage land under the Indian Act through our reserve land and environmental management program. We have lands under sectoral self-government under the First Nations Land Management Act, and then we have members who have full control and management of lands through their self-government. It's interesting to note that our membership manages over a million hectares of community lands. With additions of treaty land entitlement and specific claims, those projected numbers will increase significantly.
We have three basic mandates, in that we provide our members opportunities for professional development, networking, and technical support. This will raise professional standards to meet existing and emerging future needs for land managers to efficiently and effectively manage their lands.
We do have many challenges in managing first nation lands. We look at three major issues at least. As land management is the foundation for sustainable economic development, we need more professional capacity, more management tools and systems, and adequate resources to continue supporting our land management programs.
Managing reserve land is unique. There is no true counterpart. Just the definition of “reserve land“ poses numerous land management challenges.
Over the past 12 years we've made significant progress in raising those professional standards and promoting and building capacity in land management. Specific to reserve land designation issues and challenges, the designation process is a critical and imperative part of setting aside reserve land for economic development and other non-traditional use for extended periods of time. The typical designations go through multiple steps. The process takes approximately two years to complete, and in some cases more, as you've heard. Due to the complexities and the multi-phase designation process, many first nations have missed out on lucrative economic development opportunities. Given the extensive time and resources required to obtain reserve land designation, the process is not conducive to a fast pace of economic development.
The challenging phase of the designation is achieving the referendum voting requirements as prescribed by the Indian Act and its regulations. The purpose of the referendum vote is to determine informed consent by a majority of electors of first nations in favour of the proposed designation and the proposed transaction or its intended use. Achieving a majority of electors can be extremely difficult and, for some, unachievable, especially in cases involving large on-reserve and off-reserve populations.
The referendum process has many procedures and requires explicit timing. Significant costs are also associated in holding a referendum. Failure to follow proper referendum procedures could result in a contested and failed referendum.
The bureaucratic approval process can also create a lengthy delay. The various levels of government reviewing and signing off on a designation to reach an order in council are excessive.
In dealing with issues related to the reserve land designation, our organization is quite proud to say we've achieved many successes. As mentioned, managing reserve land under the Indian Act is unique and challenging.
To aid our members in managing the statutory land requirements of the act associated with economic development issues, we've developed a reserve land designation tool kit in partnership with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This practical tool kit has been a long time coming, and we hope to develop more of its kind in other areas of land management. The tool kit is an integrated set of printed materials, worksheets, flow charts, checklists, best practices, and case studies, creating modules designed to be used by first nations and their professional associates. The tool kit provides a consistent guide for the proper planning and preparation of designation proposals across Canada. We're very excited to be providing pilot training using the tool kit in January 2013 and intend to continue with formal training in the future.
In conclusion, as stewards of the land we have the foremost responsibility of ensuring quality land management to promote sustainable growth and prosperity within our communities. We also have the responsibility to provide technical advice and guidance to support improvement on matters related to first nations land management. Therefore, the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association recognizes that the proposed amendments to the act outlined in division 8, clauses 206 to 209 of Bill C-45 have the potential to improve the designation process.
I'm going to be leaving you a copy of the tool kit to aid you in your study. Chapter 4 of the tool kit outlines the process of the referendum vote. You can see from the many steps that it looks complicated, which it is.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association
There is one other thing: I have a PowerPoint presentation that outlines the other requirements associated with a designation.
Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. We look forward to seeing the study.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Ms. Irons. We appreciate your opening comments.
We'll now turn to our colleagues. We'll begin with Mr. Genest-Jourdain for seven minutes.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
I will proceed in French, so I would suggest that you put on your earpieces.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I believe it's channel 1 if you're looking for translation. Can our staff in the room make sure everyone has an earpiece? I believe Mr. Bird may be looking for an earpiece. Thank you.
Mr. Genest-Jourdain, we'll turn it over to you.... Go ahead, Mr. Wilks.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Wilks Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Chair, we could just allow Mr. Bird to move to a seat with an earpiece. He doesn't have one.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Sure. That may be the easiest way to accommodate him. I think we have it.
Thank you so much. I think we're ready.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Now that it's working, we will continue.
I will begin by yielding the floor to Vice Chief Bird.
You have not had an opportunity to speak, and we would very much like to hear your comments on today's delays and discussions, as well as on the legislative initiatives put forward.
Go ahead, Mr. Bird.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
You have to keep it within Mr. Genest-Jourdain's question time, so seven minutes. You're his witness, so he'll tell you when you're done.
4:50 p.m.
Vice Chief, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
All right. Thank you very much.
I will state the obvious. I'm Vice-Chief Bird, a Cree member of Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation, voted in by 74 first nations in Saskatchewan representing treaties 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I want to state that although I serve as vice-chief of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, I'm here by no means representing all first nations in Saskatchewan, and definitely not in Canada. I just want to state the obvious—that this is not consultation—but I did receive and was granted permission to speak on behalf of Onion Lake.
One of the immediate statements I will make is that we want clauses 206 and 209 removed from the omnibus legislation and a process that respects our relationship developed so as to meaningfully discuss the proposed changes. If at all possible, I'd like to read the statement given to me by Chief Wallace Fox of Onion Lake First Nation. Again, just sitting back there, I will mention one thing: that I appreciate the voices that are here in support of first nations, especially on this side of the table.
I've never been so embarrassed in my life to have three people here from the government decide for me as a treaty first nation. I hear stories from my elders and certainly from our former leadership that talk about the residential schools, that talk about the Indian permit to leave the reserve. To still have that going on, to have government people here say that they think on behalf of first nations they should do this or they should do that, is very offensive.
As I said, I come from an educational background. I've been a teacher myself and I'm a Cree speaker in the first nations and I still live off the land when I need to. That to me is my freedom to choose how I live. I have no issue with the people around the table who want to make it.... However they want to do business in regard to lands, that's their right. I don't go over to your first nation and tell you how to do things. What makes you think you have the right to come to our lands and do the same thing?
I'll leave it there for now.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Yes, of course.
How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Chair?
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC
Thank you.
I will ask the witnesses a question, and they can decide who will answer.
During the presentations, we heard my colleague talk about consultations. So I will discuss a very similar topic—the fiduciary relationship that should exist between the Crown and the aboriginal nations across the country.
Of course, I am bringing up this notion of fiduciary relationship because it is a matter of identity for first nations. So we are talking about potential alienations, potential leases, and about territories and reserves. It should be understood that, with the population growth in our communities, these are issues of identity because we have to consider living on very limited territories.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in the Haida Nation case, the Crown's fiduciary obligation includes ensuring that first nations' interest takes precedence in unilateral decisions. As far as first nations' interests go, that means they have to identify the reasoning behind a specific piece of legislation, a specific initiative. First nations have a very low voter turnout, and there are issues when it comes to voting. That is why two ballots were planned. The low level of mobilization among first nations is highly likely due to a lack of information.
What do you think is the Crown's exact obligation when it comes to ensuring that our community members are well-informed before they can speak out on a specific issue and before they can even consider voting once or twice on a matter of identity? I would like to hear your opinion, so feel free to answer.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
There's a minute and a half, if anybody in the panel wants to respond to the question Mr. Genest-Jourdain posed.
Go ahead, Mr. Jules.
4:55 p.m.
Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Tax Commission
On the issue of designations, I've personally been dealing with these issues since probably 1974 or 1975. From our perspective, those communities that have been involved in land development have always viewed the issues surrounding fiduciary as a cumbersome process. That is because the federal government owns reserve land, so any time you're trying to get into development, you're having to deal with this notion of fiduciary, which came about as a result of the Guerin decision in Musqueam. I think it's an antiquated process and one that doesn't recognize, as Chief Bird was saying, the rightful owners of the land, which, ultimately, have to be the first nations. They have to be the ones to determine what is right for their future.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you very much.
We'll now turn to Mr. Seeback for seven minutes.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Chief Jules, I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask you, picking up on some of the things that you talked about in your opening statement and a couple of other things that have come up at the committee today.
I consider you one of the driving forces behind creating strong economies on reserve with some of the land issues that you've brought forward, certainly when you talk about the Kamloops amendment.
How do you see these proposed amendments working? Do you see them as sort of complementary to the Kamloops amendment, sort of an extension that flows from that, or how do you view them?
5 p.m.
Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Tax Commission
What happened is that in 1988 we got embroiled in a court case that determined conditionally surrendered lands were no longer considered our lands. The only way to change that was by amending the Indian Act. I forget who raised the question, but one of the old chiefs from Kamloops said, “Surrender? Never. I've got a .30-30 back home.” Therefore, we had to come up with a word that allowed us to be able to do development on our lands without using the word “surrender” or, indeed, conditionally surrendering the lands, so I invented the word “designation”.
What's being proposed is simply a further step in outlining the ease with which first nations have got to get into economic development. The more steps that are involved, the more cumbersome the process, and the fewer the first nations that will be involved in the national economy.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Yes, and we talked about this at committee. I know you know that. The First Nations Land Management Act and the first nations property ownership act, which you've talked about, are all things that are going to try to create strong economies on reserve.
I think you said that the changes in 1988 created thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue. Do you see a similar effect taking place by simplifying the process as is being set out in these proposed amendments?
5 p.m.
Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Tax Commission
In and of itself, it isn't the magic bullet, but anything that reduces the cumbersome process that first nations have to be involved in to get economic development on their lands I support. The fact of the matter is that what we need is first nations to participate fully in the economy. We need to be able to develop our own institutions to facilitate that. The longer we have to depend on somebody else, other than somebody from our community, to determine what's good for us and what's bad for us, the longer we're going to be stuck in this quagmire of poverty.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
But, as you say, this will speed up the process. Do you not think that's going to—