Aaniin kina waya. Hello, everyone. Meegwetch. Thank you for the invitation to speak to this committee as we meet on the traditional lands of the Algonquin.
My name is Phil Goulais. I am a proud member of Nipissing First Nation and the former chief of Nipissing First Nation. I have had the privilege to serve as an elected director of the Lands Advisory Board for many years.
I am here this afternoon to offer the Lands Advisory Board's recommendations on the issue of restitution of land to first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. I'm accompanied by my friend, Andrew Beynon, the director of lands governance at the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre.
In our written submission, we have briefly commented on the history that has created the restitution of first nations lands issue, and we offer our recommendations on a better way forward. I would start by noting a bit of discomfort with the term “restitution of lands”, which suggests that we lost touch with our lands and that the Crown is trying to figure out how to give lands back. We never lost touch with our lands. Nipissing, including myself, continues to practise our hunting, fishing and cultural traditions despite all of the many challenges of the past relationships with the Crown. Canada and Ontario never managed to take this away.
I commend the committee for tackling the important issue of first nations lands in Canada. I also want the committee to know that Nipissing, along with so many other first nations in the 20th century, faced a very real example of the Crown's recognizing our land rights, then taking them away, and then going through incredible delays to recognize our land rights again.
For example, Nipissing's land surrender and recovery of lands.... Archeologists suggest there is evidence of occupation of our lands for about 9,000 years. Nipissing was one of the nations signatory to the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850. Later, lands were set aside, a Nipissing reserve, in the late 1800s, and in the early 20th century, Nipissing was pressed to surrender reserve lands for timber harvest, railway lands and the like. These were not surrenders taken at the request of Nipissing but were, instead, driven by Ontario and the federal government.
In one case, lands surrendered in 1907 remain unsold after failed land auctions in 1919. The lands came under the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario under the 1924 land agreement. Nipissing First Nation retained an underlying interest in the lands. After going under provincial jurisdiction, the lands remained in limbo. Neither the federal nor the provincial governments exercised jurisdiction other than to allow for easements and rights-of-way to cross the lands. Ontario did not exercise jurisdiction because it was not responsible for native affairs. Canada did not exercise jurisdiction because it was waiting for Ontario to transfer the lands back to federal control. In 1963, Nipissing requested that the lands return to Nipissing. Four parcels of land were transferred to reserve status in 1968. After that, both governments continued the state of limbo with regard to the lands, claiming that no legislation covered the return of unsold surrendered land back to reserve status.
In 1986, the Indian Lands Agreement in Ontario provided a mechanism to allow for the repatriation of unsold surrendered lands to their former owners. Negotiations were restarted on the return of the unsold lands to Nipissing, leading to a 1995 specific agreement between Nipissing First Nation, Canada and the Province of Ontario. Orders in council to finalize the transition of the lands to reserve status were completed by the Province of Ontario in 2009, 34 years after the premier of Ontario promised to transfer unsold surrendered lands to Canada. As of this morning, we still don't have Canada's order in council.
More recently, we have pursued other additions to reserve that have taken a quarter of a century or more to complete. ATR policies sought by the Lands Advisory Board will take years to complete, cost us greatly in terms of staff, time and delays, or perhaps even cause us to lose out on economic opportunities. This is despite the fact that Nipissing is one of the earliest to have signed onto the framework agreement and to govern our lands successfully under our land code.
The Lands Advisory Board recommendations in our written submission include specific recommendations for this committee. I will summarize the recommendations.
First, Canada's land policies need to catch up with the era of reconciliation instead of confrontation. Reconciliation requires timely diligence in the pursuit of its objectives.
Second, claims and treaty negotiation policies, as well as ATR policies, need to support first nations and neighbouring Canadians in resolving land issues to the benefit of all.
Third, Canada's ATR policy is broken. We hope for this committee's support on our recommendations for a completely new approach, which is aimed at overcoming intolerable delays. Our aim is to break down the policy limitations and the current reliance on federal tools, systems and personnel.
Fourth, we also hope for this committee's support in convincing Canada to break down barriers between its own self-government land policies.... We have a proven track record of success under the framework agreement on reserves.
I, along with my friend Mr. Beynon from the resource centre, welcome your questions.
Thank you. Meegwetch.Merci.