Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2015

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

It was controversial when this first came about. The FNLMA was controversial at the time. It's not controversial now.

One of the things that I notice as we're doing this study is that everyone keeps trying to find creative ways to tap dance around section 89 of the Indian Act. There are people who say that they'll take an interest in accounts receivable for a business to try to find funding, or that they'll try to do this or that. Everyone's trying to find creative ways around section 89. There has been some discussion at this committee by some witnesses about first nations property ownership that would of course get them out of section 89. That's quite controversial today. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[William McCue]

I can say that there are options that are put forward by communities. Ours was controversial at the time. It was something that first nations wanted to move forward. In areas of property ownership, if there are communities that want to take that next step as first nations, I think they should be awarded the opportunity to move forward if that's the area that they feel they want self-government in.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Chief Austin Bear, what do you think?

[Chief Austin Bear]

Well, on first nations ownership, private ownership, or first nations lands being fee simple lands, I can't support that. I haven't in the past.

The biggest reason is that our lands are treaty lands, lands acquired because of the settlement of the territory by means of treaty—and I mentioned earlier that I'm from Treaty 6—so I don't know from our nation, our nationhood, and the relationship with that treaty, how we could simply be private landowners or fee simple landowners. Our first nation and the Cree nation is much more than that. We have to maintain the treaty relationship and the treaty lands. That's my position.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

But can you—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you. Sorry, that's the end of your round.

We'll move to Ms. Hughes now for the next five minutes.

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

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your taking the time to come here to talk about this issue.

Chief Bear, you actually raised an issue that I was going to ask about, and that was additions to reserve, and the need for the government to move a bit quicker on that.

I know Pic Mobert First Nation has a land and greater land use agreement that they're just waiting for the minister to put his signature on. It took them 22 years to finally get that ready. I know that Minister Valcourt has been quoted as saying:

Our Government is committed to working with interested First Nations to create jobs and economic opportunities and.... We will continue to work with interested First Nations across Canada to enable the development of their lands and resources, ensuring the conditions for strong, self-sufficient and prosperous communities.

We have a minister who makes the statement. Actually, my colleague here, Mr. Strahl, during a late show just recently mentioned “willing partners”.

One clarification I would like from you, Chief Bear, is this. Do you think there are no willing partners out there for first nations? My understanding is that all first nations are willing partners. They want to move their projects forward, and they want to make sure their first nations communities are very successful. Is that your opinion as well?

[Chief Austin Bear]

Oh, absolutely. Of the 634 first nations in Canada, I would suggest that they're all willing partners. They may not be willing partners to the framework agreement at this time, but they're certainly seeking every opportunity to improve the lives and the conditions of their citizens, whether they live on first nations land or in the community, or elsewhere.

Quite often our members live elsewhere—in metropolitan areas, towns, cities—because there is no opportunity in our communities. There is an inadequate supply of affordable, safe housing. There's such a range of obstacles and concerns that we have to address. I wouldn't suggest that we have to rely on government for all the answers, because government will fail us. We have to do that ourselves. But when resources are scarce, when resources are needed, whether it's financial or for the development of human resources, then we need a hand up. We're not asking for a handout. I think that's the difference.

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

I really appreciate your input on that. I think it is extremely important when we're looking at the land and greater land use agreements to clarify that we may have some differences of opinion when it comes to what we think is in the best interests of communities and what you think is in the best interests of your community, for example, but it doesn't mean that you're not a willing partner.

I know that for Pic Mobert First Nation, the land and greater land use agreement is only for 16 square kilometres. They already have contracts lined up for their industrial park and they need housing. They have a water treatment plant that's in the process of being built and it will actually service more housing. It's the government that's actually holding things up, so that's quite problematic.

Based on the challenges when it comes to pushing forward and making sure that the policy on additions to reserve is actually finalized, I think that is actually holding back your ability to access capital as well as to develop. Is that correct?

[Chief Austin Bear]

That is correct.

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

I guess that's one of the recommendations, to make sure the government actually ensures that the proper resources are there when it comes to moving those forward.

Do I still have some time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

You have about 15 seconds.

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

Okay.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the 2003 Auditor General's report. Maybe I'll wait till the next round, and hopefully get a question there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you.

Now we have Mr. Strahl for five minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you.

My question is for Chief Bear. Of the first nations that apply to join the schedule for the First Nations Land Management Act, what percentage are accepted? Do you have those figures?

[Chief Austin Bear]

Not exactly. There's a process that government asks for, and one of the first steps is asking a first nation to do a self-assessment. I suppose it's suggesting capacity and readiness. At the lands advisory board, we don't look at our first nations that way, so we wouldn't dare suggest or impose ourselves on a first nation and ask, “Are you this, that, and the other?” That's not how we address our first nations.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

We're hearing from Mr. Seeback's questioning earlier how this is gathering momentum and that there are a number of first nations that are trying to get into this. I assume that not every first nation that applies for entry meets the criteria, so if that's the case, would you say, “You need to work on this particular criteria”? I'm assuming there is some filtering in terms of who is accepted and who is not.

[Chief Austin Bear]

I would suggest that, with the government's self-assessment and the number of first nations that are invited to do that, which are on the schedule to hopefully be signatories, the self-assessment is weighed against some criteria that the government has, but I don't know what that is.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

So you wouldn't be prepared then to discuss what some of the common deficiencies are that we could recommend as a committee be addressed at an earlier stage. I guess I'm trying to figure out....

Getting out from under the Indian Act is something that first nations want. It's something that government has said it wants and the opposition wants it, but we don't just throw the doors open and say, “Everyone is ready for first nations land management.” We have some criteria through the land advisory board and the government. How can we help more first nations get to the point your two nations have gotten to?

[Chief Austin Bear]

Just getting back to the first question on criteria, I think it has been the practice that the government or the department, AANDC, suggest and maintain that if a first nation is in a lawsuit against a minister or the crown, they wouldn't entertain that first nation until such time as the legal proceedings or the lawsuit was settled. The minister and his department also frown on first nations that are in third-party management. Those were two areas that may be a problem or an obstacle to first nations wishing to become signatories.

There are also boundary issues. If the first nation's land boundaries are not clear, it could drag on for 10 to 15 years to determine the boundary issues. Then they wouldn't proceed into that process because the process, from signing and getting through the community process for developmental, is only two years. You may have a land issue or a boundary issue that could drag on for 15 or 20 years.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

My time is running out here.

What is the average time from when a first nation is either selected or applies until they are in the schedule?

[Chief Austin Bear]

Depending on the funds available for new entrants, from the time there is a.... I'll just use these past six. They were just announced probably about a month ago. The minister's office is talking about a signing ceremony for the adhesion to the framework agreement perhaps in the next month. Once that is complete, then they're signed and there's adhesion to the framework agreement. Then they go into the community process, so that takes two years generally from start to finish, perhaps two and a half years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you, and we now have Ms. Hughes again for the next five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, and I'll share my time with my colleague Niki Ashton.

I want to go to a background brief to the 2003 Auditor General's report that talked about barriers to economic development and access to capital, among other things. The brief said:

...the government fails to focus on outcomes in its program performance evaluation, and First Nation interests, such as overall improvements of socio-economic circumstances and the creation of sustainable jobs, are neglected. The Report determines that, in order to improve the situation, it is crucial for the government to include economic development in their result review structure and that the information sharing structure under Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should be organized horizontally.

My question is open to anyone who wants to answer. Have you seen much change in being able to move that forward? From what we can see, those barriers are still there. We talked about the additions to reserve. From what we can see, it's just not moving at the speed of business for first nations.

[Chief Austin Bear]

With respect to the first nations that are signatory and/or have an operational land code, there is evidence that these first nations are moving in greater leaps and bounds, and I think I mentioned in my opening comments, that is evidenced by the KPMG report. There are great success stories from across the country about first nations successes in economic development, community development, creating employment, and improving the lives of their members in their communities. There is evidence across the country, and we attribute that to discarding the Indian Act and moving ahead with first nations land management.