Thank you very much, and my apologies for having to leave, but this is a meeting that's been set up for a while. I'll get on with the presentation. I hope to at least be able to take one or two questions. When I leave, you will be left in very good hands with Mr. MacIsaac.
Thank you, and good morning, Chair and committee members. We appreciate the opportunity to be before you this morning. I am Murry Krause, City of Prince George councillor and chair of the Union of BC Municipalities First Nations Relations Committee. Joining me, via video conference from Vancouver, is Gary MacIsaac, the executive director with the Union of BC Municipalities—UBCM.
We've been asked to speak today by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities—FCM—owing to UBCM's ongoing work and knowledge of federal policy on additions to reserve and reserve creation, as well as the relevance of this issue to our membership.
UBCM is a provincial organization with 100% local government membership in B.C., and it is a member of FCM. Our organization is a member-driven organization with 194 local government members, including seven self-governing first nations members. I'm pleased to be here to convey our position and concerns regarding the proposed revisions to the federal policy on additions to reserve and reserve creation.
First, I'd like to emphasize that UBCM members have an established policy of expressing support for first nations endeavouring to increase economic development activities in their communities. UBCM recognizes the potential for positive outcomes of economic endeavours for both local governments and first nations. As such, UBCM understands the real and substantial need for the federal government to support first nations growth and development in an expedient, straightforward manner.
That said, the 2013 draft ATR policy, as currently written, has the potential to affect local government operations extensively. Areas of concern raised by our membership include local government consultation, expediency at the expense of clarity, facilitation and dispute resolution, implication of non-contiguity and transfers of jurisdiction—including service concerns—land use compatibility, and community growth and fiscal implications.
I will do my best to give a short overview of these issues today, but I would ask you to review our written brief, which conveys these concerns in detail. This brief is based upon our October 2013 submission to the federal government during the formal ATR policy comment period and is based on UBCM policy as well as solicited member feedback. I believe you also have, or will have shortly, an FCM submission on the revised ATR policy, which speaks in support of UBCM's position.
I also understand that a delegation from metro Vancouver, a long-standing UBCM and FCM member will be sharing their perspective following my presentation and will comment further on these points. Their perspective, as a local government service provider, will be especially pertinent to your study.
The first and perhaps most pressing point of concern I would like to raise is local government consultation. UBCM has been monitoring the ATR policy for a number of years. Since October 2010, we have expressed interest in the ATR review process several times, contacting the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to request updates and an opportunity to provide feedback on the policy, as well as the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples during its ATR review in March 2013. We expressed disappointment that local governments had not been consulted during the ATR policy review thus far.
UBCM arranged for a teleconference with AANDC staff regarding the ATR review in July 2013. However, this update was provided less than two weeks before the draft policy was released for public comment. Because UBCM members expressed significant concern regarding the ATR policy review, we also invited AANDC staff to participate in the session at the UBCM convention in September 2013. The level of member concern expressed in this session underscored the need for much more substantial local government engagement on the revised ATR policy.
The lack of government perspective in this review speaks to an underlying issue in the draft policy itself—the absence of a clearly defined and recognized role for local authorities within the ATR process. The importance of early, meaningful consultation with local government cannot be understated when a federal initiative affects local government operations. Local governments do not aim to obstruct first nations prosperity. Ensuring early and ongoing local government participation provides an outlet for discussion and problem resolution.
As noted, a key issue identified by our members in regard to the revised policy involves lack of clarity resulting from efforts to expedite additions to reserve. Reducing the ATR policy length substantially, condensing category criteria, redrafting sections, and relying on resources external to the policy have created a vagueness that could counteract attempts to expedite the process. Our brief identifies sections of the policy that could be revised to clarify local government's role within the ATR process, including strengthening the language regarding local government collaboration, local government consultation prior to a letter of support issuance, and recognition of local government timelines and structures within the policy.
Another concern I would like to raise is on dispute resolution. The ATR process is built upon a good neighbour approach to negotiating agreements. This is the preferred approach for any type of discussion or negotiation between adjacent communities. However, constructive dialogue can become strained when financial and other implications are anticipated by one of the negotiating parties.
In its report “Additions to Reserve: Expediting the Process”, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommended “Support mechanisms, including dispute resolution assistance, to First Nations in their negotiations with municipalities and third parties”. In its response to the report, the government states that it will better support productive negotiations between first nations and local governments and/or third parties through improved guidelines, tools, and resources under the ATR policy.
Ultimately, the only way of resolving outstanding disputes within the 2013 draft ATR policy is via a unilateral decision by the regional director general, based on his determination of whether the parties are negotiating in good faith. In our view, adequate dispute resolution measures should be outlined in the policy itself, and AANDC should provide facilitative and technical assistance to both first nations and local governments as needed.
Another aspect of the policy that concerns B.C. local governments is the relaxing of contiguity requirements. UBCM policy supports selections of contiguous parcels of land rather than dispersed and unconnected lands in order to preserve jurisdictional clarity and uniformity and to allow for the efficient use of public facilities and services.
The draft 2013 ATR policy stipulates that the proposed reserve lands should normally be located within a first nations treaty or traditional territories. But they may also access lands that are not adjacent to existing reserves and are outside of their traditional territories. However, as one of UBCM's members has stated, serving non-contiguous reserve lands presents a major problem for local governments, considering the existing jurisdictional and legislative barriers to servicing non-treaty first nations lands.
Loss of land and tax base, jurisdictional fragmentation, land use inconsistencies or conflicts, and bylaw coordination are some of the key concerns for local governments. The concerns around servicing non-contiguous lands emphasize broader concerns around local government's exposure to liability as a result of the existing regulatory gap, which directly impacts service provision for non-contiguous reserve lands.
Land use compatibility is another area of concern for UBCM members. The 2013 draft ATR policy requires that first nations and local governments discuss issues of mutual interest and concern, and it requires that where the proposed reserve land is within, adjacent, or abutting a local government, the first nation notify the local government. In our view, the broad requirements for discussion notifications are not adequate, given the complexity of issues at hand.
B.C. local governments have well-established land use processes and structures that often involve extensive community engagement, some of which are entrenched in provincial legislation. As such, early, meaningful engagement that is outlined clearly within the policy should commit all parties to considering potential impacts of the ATR proposal on land use plans and acting as needed to address these issues.
The last item I would like to raise today is one of local government fiscal implications pursuant to additions to reserve. The budgetary process designed by the Local Government Act requires local governments to recover costs and balance their budgets. Maintaining financial stability is of critical importance to local governments in order that they continue to be able to provide services expected by the residents at a reasonable cost.
Significant or unanticipated changes to any of their revenue resources may result in revenue shortfalls and tax increases unless there's a corresponding decrease in expenditures. The draft ATR policy has the potential to increase the number of ATR proposals, and as lands are removed from a local government tax base, the loss of existing tax revenues for some local governments may be significant.
In that regard, we note that the 2001 ATR policy includes guidelines for the negotiation of reasonable compensation for local government tax loss. These guidelines are not contained within the 2013 draft ATR policy, and it does not stipulate what formula or cost-recovery mechanism is appropriate or over what timeline adjustment payments can be expected. It has been indicated by AANDC staff that guidelines for negotiating net tax loss payments will be expanded and developed in a separate guideline document. However, it is our view that local governments should be provided with a tax-loss framework so that they may be better equipped to mitigate potential losses. To this end, clear provisions formalized within the policy are needed.
In summary, I would like to reiterate that the federal government must recognize local authorities as participants in processes and policies that impact local jurisdiction, such as the additions to reserve policy. More work is needed, and we hope to have the opportunity to work with first nations and the federal government to ensure that the revised ATR policy is as strong and as clear as it can be to support all parties working within the process.
Again, thank you very much for listening to us. We'll take some questions.