Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 6 - Evidence - November 16, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:47 p.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on the web or CPAC.
I am Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, chair of the committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. In order to understand the concerns of our constituents, we regularly invite representatives from Aboriginal organizations to testify before us.
This evening, we will hear from one organization, the First Nations Lands Advisory Board. Under the 1996 Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, signatory nations established a land advisory board to assist them in implementing their own land management regimes. The land advisory board is composed of chiefs regionally elected from among the First Nations involved. It can propose to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development amendments to the framework agreement and the First Nations Land Management Act. In consultation with First Nations, the board negotiates funding methods with the minister and performs other functions as agreed to by the board and the First Nations.
[Translation]
Before hearing our witnesses, I would like to introduce the committee members that are here with us this evening.
[English]
On my left is Senator Larry Campbell from the great province of British Columbia. On my right is Senator Ataullahjan from Ontario. Next to her is Senator Raine from British Columbia. Next to her is Senator Demers from Quebec. Next to him, last but certainly not least, is Senator Patterson from Nunavut.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from the First Nations Lands Advisory Board. They are Chief Robert Louie, Chair, from the Westbank First Nation. With him is Steve Aronson, Legal Adviser. Next to him is Chief Austin Bear, Director, from Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan; and William McCue, Director, and you will let us know where you are from.
William McCue, Director, Lands Advisory Board: Georgina Island First Nation, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. We also have Jody Wilson-Raybould, Director.
We welcome you all to the committee and look forward to your presentation. I would ask you to keep your comments concise and precise so we will have an adequate amount of time to place questions to you so that we better understand the challenges for your organization and everyone involved.
Chief Louie, you will be speaking on behalf of the Lands Advisory Board. You have the floor. Thank you for being here; it is an honour to have you here.
Robert Louie, Chair, Lands Advisory Board: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be here. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you again this evening. It has been a while since we have had this opportunity. It is indeed an honour, and we are pleased to be here.
As you know, my name is Robert Louie. My traditional name is Seemoo. In our Okanagan language, it means "connected to the lands." I am Chief of the Westbank First Nation in British Columbia, and I am also Chair of the Lands Advisory Board.
Mr. Chair, you mentioned the people with me but let me further expand on that.
To my extreme right is Councillor William McCue of the Georgina Island First Nation. He is also a past chief and a member of both the Lands Advisory Board and the Lands Advisory Board Resource Centre board of directors.
To my immediate right is Jody Wilson-Raybould. She is the Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief for British Columbia, an LAB member and councillor for her community, We Wai Kai on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. She is also a practising lawyer.
To my immediate left is Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan. He chairs both the Lands Advisory Board finance committee and the Lands Advisory Board Resource Centre board of directors.
Next to Chief Bear is Mr. Steve Aronson, long-term legal adviser to both the Lands Advisory Board and the resource centre.
We are here to provide you with a briefing on the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management and to answer your questions on land management issues. I want to say at the outset that the land management initiative is a tremendous success story for First Nations across this country and for Canada.
Given the short time allowed for our presentation, I will touch on the highlights. My colleagues and I can then go into greater detail in response to your questions.
The framework agreement represents the culmination of years of effort by a national group of chiefs to create for our First Nations the option to govern our reserve lands and resources under our own land codes that is free from the constraints imposed under the Indian Act.
The framework agreement is a government-to-government agreement signed in 1996 by the chiefs of 14 First Nations and Canada. In June 1999, Canada enacted the First Nations Land Management Act, which ratified and brought the framework agreement into effect. The framework agreement represents an incremental but integral step towards self-government.
Today we have 37 First Nations that have ratified their land codes and are fully operational. Of these, two First Nations have taken the next step to full self-governance. Those two are my community, the Westbank First Nation, and the Tsawwassen First Nation in British Columbia under their treaty final agreement. There are currently seven First Nations in the developmental phase and a further 80 First Nations that have expressed formal interest in joining the process. This represents a total of 124 First Nations, or 20 per cent of all First Nations in Canada.
This tremendous growth in interest is due to the determination of First Nations to take direct control over our lands and resources. We believe that there are two fundamental reasons for this success. First, this process is one that was conceived, developed and implemented by First Nations for our lands. It is a process over which we have pride of ownership and, as a result, is one that is embraced in our communities.
Second, and perhaps more important, our communities see the benefits in terms of economic development, job creation, reduced dependency on social programs and enhanced governance that the framework agreement provides. This success has been validated in a recent KPMG study that has found that framework agreement First Nations are attracting businesses, creating jobs, reducing dependence on social programming and enhancing our governance capacity, all of which result in a more efficient approach to doing business.
One of the tremendous benefits of this land management framework agreement has been the increased accountability at the community level. In taking on this form of self-government, the elected leadership of our communities are now able to respond directly to the membership on land-related matters because the decision-making authority is now held locally. We must respond directly to our membership, as these matters are no longer the responsibility of the minister and departmental officials. Not only is this result an enhancement of life within our communities, but also we making a significant contribution to the improvement of the Canadian economy.
While difficult to quantify, it has been estimated that the financial return contributed to the Canadian economy by operational First Nations is in the order of 10 times the funding that has been invested in the framework agreement.
In closing, I would like to raise three additional points. First, we have been working with Canada on amendments to the framework agreement and therefore also to the First Nations Land Management Act. These amendments are required to make the process even more efficient and are based on 11 years of operational experience. We hope that you will pass them quickly once introduced by the government. Our First Nations have done our part in approving the amendment under the framework agreement, and we are now waiting for government legislation to finalize its course of action.
Second, we recently signed a four-year operational funding agreement with Canada. This agreement builds on the government commitments made in the Speech from the Throne and in Budget 2011. While this agreement does provide for stable funding for our operational communities, it will allow for only 13 of the 80 First Nations currently on the waiting list.
As I just mentioned, the estimated return on investment to the Canadian economy over the last 10 years has been significant. Just think what the admission of an additional 80 communities would mean. In order to admit all of those communities, there will be a requirement for additional funding.
Finally, we have heard a lot recently about the so-called "modernization" of the land management process. In answering this point, I would draw your attention to the words of the late Chief Joe Mathias, a former hereditary Chief of the Squamish First Nation, a long-time proponent of Aboriginal rights and a man who was widely recognized for having dedicated much time and effort towards the goal of having those rights recognized. When the First Nations Land Management Act was passed into law, he said:
This may be the single most historic accomplishment for First Nations this century to have First Nations recognized as governments with their own law-making powers and control over their own lands . . .
We would like to state for the record that the framework agreement has been an historic exercise in modernization. It works, it is a proven commodity and it is widely supported by First Nations across this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. I will ask the first question, if I may. You have come out with three things. Is there anything else that you are concerned about, chief, you and your advisory board, other than the three points that you brought up towards the end of your dissertation?
Mr. Louie: If I may expand, the most important thing is getting the First Nations that are ready, willing and able to participate. I do not want to underemphasize this. In fact, I want to make it very clear that while we have the approved funding now in place for the next four years, we do not have enough to get those First Nations all in. That is a concern. We believe that if Canada sees fit to add to the amount that has been committed now, we can get more returns to Canada and to the First Nations, and we can be so much further ahead. I think this is very significant. We have done some internal investigation in that regard. May I say, Mr. Chairman, right now we have $24.1 million that has been confirmed. If Canada would support this initiative by an extra $6 million in years 4 and 5, our estimates and our results show that an additional 20 First Nations can be added to the First Nations that have been approved to this point. That, Mr. Chairman, we believe is very significant, and returns would far outweigh any investment made by Canada.
The Chair: I am getting down to the total investment that we are talking about. There are 80 First Nations sitting there waiting to come in.
Mr. Louie: That is correct.
The Chair: The four-year operational funding agreement that you have recently signed will bring in 13 First Nations. Are you sitting with $18.1 million, and another $6 million would bring another 20 in?
Mr. Louie: We are sitting with $24.1 million. That includes the $20 million that was in the Speech from the Throne earlier this year, and 13 First Nations are estimated to be in this budget, plus it also includes the 7 that are developmental. With the 13 new First Nations, with the 7 developmental that are in the process right now, that is 20. If we bring an extra 20 First Nations in, we could do it with $6 million more. If you round it to $30 million, we could have, in total, 40 First Nations across Canada involved.
The Chair: That would leave 40 sitting out there?
Mr. Louie: That is correct.
The Chair: How do they determine who comes first? Is it first come, first served?
Mr. Louie: We have been going through this exercise with Canada. Our resource centre has been actively involved in looking at the new entrants. This is being determined now. No one at this point can say which First Nations will be allowed in. We just know that we have that 80 on the waiting list. They are all wishing and asking that they be involved. It will now be a process of determining which ones can come in first.
Senator Patterson: This is a great story. We do not always hear positive stories around this table in this committee, so this is great news. I am well impressed with the importance of owning and managing land, coming from Nunavut. I think the Inuit of Nunavut are probably the largest private landholders in North America, and they are reaping significant economic benefits from that.
You requested our support for the amendments that are being considered after your 11 years of experience. Could you give us an idea of the nature of those amendments? Are they quite technical, or are they more significant than minor tweaking?
Mr. Louie: Our legal counsel, Steve Aronson, has been directly involved with these amendments. Perhaps he could respond to that.
Steve Aronson, Legal Advisor, Lands Advisory Board: The amendments to the framework agreement, which are the fifth set of amendments, are largely intended to increase the efficiency of land management. As Chief Louie has indicated, after 11 years, you notice a few kinks in the system, and you say both Canada and the Lands Advisory Board have agreed to do the following. These are to some extent, as Senator Patterson has indicated, technical, but I can summarize them briefly.
The first one is to clarify the extent of reserve land that will be managed and administered by a First Nation under a land code and do this by excluding lands where there is a boundary uncertainty due to title issues or survey problems.
The second is to make it certain that when a First Nation land code is ratified by the community, both the individual agreement that deals with funding and the land to be governed by the community are approved and signed, in the case of the individual agreements, signed by both the minister and the First Nation before the First Nation becomes operational.
The third is to allow operational First Nations to make and implement environmental protection laws and environmental assessment laws without requiring what was called in the framework agreement an environmental management agreement, which was a prerequisite agreement between Canada and a First Nation before the First Nation could actually make these environmental protection laws.
Finally, it assures that the environmental laws that a First Nation makes will contain the same or better standards and penalties for offences. These penalties and standards would have to have the same effect as those in the province in which the First Nation is situated. That is the basic summary of what six pages of amendments do.
Senator Patterson: Hopefully those amendments will come to our committee, and we can deal with them expeditiously, if that is the nature of the amendments.
I would like to ask Chief Louie, or anyone else, about the return on Canada's investment. You estimated a tenfold return, perhaps, and I know that is hard to quantify. I am betraying my ignorance here. First Nations can be exempt from taxation by virtue of treaties or other precedents, but are some of the revenues that you are talking about, or some of the returns, in fact tax revenues to governments? What is the nature of the returns that you were describing?
Mr. Louie: We have analyzed this, of course with KPMG's help, and we have got some figures here. I think those figures are important. Some of them are not all monetary, and I will explain both scenarios, both the monetary one and the employment and training and that sort of thing.
The projections right now show that we have had the provision of 2,000 employment opportunities for band members — this is what has happened to date — and more than 10,000 employment opportunities for non-members. That is what has been estimated now, and that has pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economies.
We also know that internal investment has been at $53 million through member-owned enterprises. External investment has been estimated at approximately $100 million to date overall in joint partnerships with third parties.
The quality of jobs now available on reserve lands by the participating First Nation members has allowed for and requires higher levels of education, so we are getting returns in that regard as well.
We have put these figures together with KPMG, who has verified them. We are experiencing an overall increase in registered land transactions of 9 per cent per year while Indian Act First Nations have shown a decrease of 1 per cent. It has also been estimated that we will increase land register transactions over the next 10 years by 32 per cent, whereas Indian Act First Nations expect a decrease over this period of 5 per cent.
The cost of processing and registering transactions for First Nations ranges from $370 to $1,500 per transaction. Estimates show that Canada's cost exceeds $2,400 per transaction — a vast difference. These are just some indications that communities are creating far more efficient systems with land management, and this will translate into millions of dollars.
For example, as I indicated earlier, we believe that the return on an investment of $30 million would be at least $300 million for Canada. These are monies that will be put into local economies from coast to coast. We believe that Canada must make this investment. We have figures to back up these estimates.
Senator Campbell: Thank you very much for coming here this evening.
Chief Bear, yours is one of the operational First Nations?
Austin Bear, Director, Lands Advisory Board: That is correct.
Senator Campbell: What difference has this made for your First Nation?
Mr. Bear: This could take me several days, but I will restrict myself.
I will tell you a quick story to illustrate the difference between First Nations having control over their lands and resources and not having control. Around 1993, before we became operational, the Muskoday First Nation was approached by a firm in the state of Kansas that wanted to establish a farm implement factory in Saskatchewan. We had several meetings with their board and their CEO. When they learned that Muskoday did not have control over their lands and had to rely on the provisions and policies of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act they said they did not have 18 months or two years to wait, that they had to make a decision then. Unfortunately, the Muskoday First Nation were not the decision makers. The firm withdrew their offer and they set up their implement manufacturing shop in a town near North Battleford. That was an opportunity for investment. It would have created 30 full-time employment opportunities for our people. It would have taken our people totally off social assistance.
That is the difference between prior land code years and after land code years. If that opportunity came tomorrow, we could make a decision in a timely fashion rather than in 18 months or two years.
The difference between land management and land codes, as Chief Louie mentioned, is the opportunity for growth. Last year in our community, through our land code and developing lands and resources, we set a budget on our own- source revenue for the benefit of our people of almost $2 million, which we did not have before 1999 or 2000. In that budget we provided for almost $1.3 million worth of programs and services that would not otherwise exist in our community. They support elders, adult education, culture and fire protection, to mention only a few. Those are the benefit we are reaping, sir.
Senator Campbell: I take it that the green on this chart indicates the operational First Nations, people who are now part of this. Is that correct?
Mr. Louie: That is correct.
Senator Campbell: The pink indicates ones that want to get in. Why do we have so many operational First Nations in British Columbia as compared to the rest of Canada? Saskatchewan is up there as well, but Manitoba is lower. Why are there so many in British Columbia? Why did they get there in such numbers?
Mr. Louie: There are various reasons for that. Many of the First Nations in British Columbia are closer to larger centres with more economic development opportunities and more demands. They may have better access to infrastructure. That is part of the reason. I see it growing. We do have demands right across the country. That is probably one of the main reasons.
Many of the First Nations are very development-oriented. For example, the Stó:lo Nation, which is quite a large community, is comprised of 20 individual bands. Several years ago we received band council resolutions from every one of those 20 First Nations.
Senator Campbell: Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that we have only two treaties in British Columbia? From my point of view, everyone that would like to be involved should be involved once they pass your test. Do you think that not having a treaty makes a difference?
Mr. Louie: I will defer to my colleague Ms. Wilson-Raybould. She is the regional chief and deals with issues across Canada.
Jody Wilson-Raybould, Director, Lands Advisory Board: Thank you for that question, Senator Campbell, and thank you for participating in the legislature of the Tsawwassen First Nation, one of the two First Nations that you indicated have reached final agreement.
Senator Campbell: It was my honour.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I can speak on behalf of my own community where I sit as a council member as well as to the 203 First Nations in British Columbia. I do not mean to exclude the rest of the country, but British Columbia First Nations have for the most part not settled the land question. We are in an amazing period of transition, not only in British Columbia but across the country, in terms of decolonization, looking at the negative implications of the Indian Act and wanting to move away from those and toward self-determination. Land management and reform is a hugely important aspect of self-determination and governance. Around 70 per cent of the First Nations in British Columbia are looking at governance reform. They are moving beyond the status quo, having recognized that taking control of decisions that impact our local communities has been very beneficial.
Examples in leadership for the last 20 years, which have been shown through initiatives such as First Nations land management, have brought in other First Nations that want to build on the success that communities have had in terms of unleashing economic potential on our reserve lands and, more importantly, leading towards what Tsawwassen First Nation or the Westbank First Nation has done in terms of making decisions for ourselves in this period and moving toward self-determination based on the period of First Nation building that we are in.
I can use my own community, as Chief Bear has done. We are operational as well. I come from the We Wai Kai First Nation. Two years ago, we passed our own land code. What it meant for me personally was that the house that I live in now has a legal interest to it whereas before it did not. It was owned by Canada; it was administered by our chief and council and it was governed by the Indian Act — neither an appropriate system of government for anyone or for indigenous people, for that matter.
To answer your question in a long way, our First Nations in British Columbia, like First Nations to a certain degree across the country, are engaged in a process to establish our legal framework and our institutional structure that is in place for the rest of Canadians but not for Aboriginal people. What we are doing is exciting. It is exciting that there is a legal interest in my land but it is more exciting that my First Nation is embarking on and moving down a continuum of governance where we will have decision-making authority locally based upon our community priorities, our culture and our traditions. That is, built from the ground up, based upon what our community members say. That is the fundamental foundation of where we come from as First Nations who are involved in land management and who want to take control over decisions that impact our communities.
Senator Campbell: Thank you.
Senator Meredith: I have a supplementary to Senator Campbell's question with respect to treaties. Others have appeared before us, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, and have indicated that they would rather go the treaty process and go that route. You have indicated that you have taken a more proactive approach in dealing with these issues locally. Congratulations on owning that piece of property and on having control over it.
In the absence of treaties that are being negotiated with the federal government, some have said "No, we should go and ensure that their treaty is being written and that we are adhering to that." You are saying that in the interest of economic development — and, as a businessman, I believe in that — resources and partnerships out there must be had in terms of development. I believe that the best social program, as you indicated, chief, is a job. Mr. Bear, I heard your comment as I walked in.
In terms of ensuring that the First Nations people have the same access as the rest of Canadians across this country, what is your take on how the negotiations are going with respect to treaties that are still being negotiated? Again, I understand that economic development must take place for the First Nations people.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: Thank you for that supplemental question. Having been the former acting chief commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission process, I have somewhat of an understanding about it. I acknowledge the chief commissioner now, Sophie Pierre, and all the First Nations who are still engaging in the process and trying to settle the land question in British Columbia. I acknowledge those First Nations that are close. However, the treaty process will approach its twentieth anniversary and there are two final agreements that have been settled under that process.
There are significant mandate challenges for the majority of First Nations that are engaged in that process, which are brought forward by both the provincial and the federal government. In the absence of an ability to reach a fair settlement under that process right now, as it is, First Nations are looking at alternatives based upon what community members are talking about locally driven solutions that are brought forward by our communities and led by First Nations. We are having significant success in British Columbia. Whether it is in the courts or at the negotiation tables outside of the treaty process, Aboriginal title in British Columbia is crystallizing. It is not a surprise that where title is crystallizing, agreements are being reached between and among the various First Nations in our province, who are taking advantage of opportunities that exist outside of the treaty process. I believe it is in everyone's interest to ensure that First Nations can reach settlements, whether inside or outside of the treaty process.
In my view of First Nations and where we are going in British Columbia, opportunities have been seized outside and the opportunities result from what is happening in our communities and what those needs are. Those needs are around building our institutions of governance and moving down that governance continuum. This initiative has hugely impacted, in a positive way, First Nations who have moved out of 25 per cent of the Indian Act in terms of land management and the resources in our communities.
Mr. Louie: If I may add to that, approximately two thirds of the First Nations in Canada are covered by treaties; the other third is not.
In this land management initiative, treaty and non-treaty First Nations are equally interested. In fact, one of the fundamental principles when the initiative started was that this would not affect or have that negative impact on treaty. The treaty First Nations have made it abundantly clear — and they are participating today — that it does not impact their treaty. What has been done now is clarity. That jurisdictional exercise by that First Nation now to be the decision makers is equally important to a treaty as opposed to a non-treaty First Nation.
Senator Demers: Even before we started tonight, my chief told me that this would be a feel good story and it has been. We have sat here for the last two years plus and there have been some tough nights, so, chief, I have tremendous respect for that.
One of the tremendous benefits of this regime has been the increased accountability at the community level. If you have no accountability, it does not move. I really congratulate you for that. The word "accountability" means so much in everyday life. You are definitely heading in that right direction. It is easier for the senators to work with you when we have people who are accountable.
Maybe I misunderstood, but when you said that in years 4 and 5 we need $6 million to add more First Nations to a better situation, is it $6 million per year or $6 million for each year? Do you recall?
Mr. Louie: No, it is $6 million in total, and it would not have to start until years 4 and 5. Right now, we are completing the end of year 1. We have four years starting April 1 of 2012. In the fourth and fifth year of this five-year arrangement, that is when we have calculated that the $6 million would kick in. It is not immediate needs right now. We can operate quite efficiently.
Senator Demers: It is three per year, chief, is that right? Are you saying $3 million per year for year 4 and year 5? That is additional, is that correct?
Mr. Louie: Yes; that is correct.
Senator Demers: Thank you so much. Congratulations to the movement; it is going well. You could always improve it, but it is a good start.
Senator Ataullahjan: Amongst the nations that have land codes, how many have rules and procedures regarding matrimonial property?
Mr. Bear: I do not know the numbers, but I think Mr. Aronson has the actual numbers. I know the Muskoday First Nation is one of the first that met the provisions and requirements of the framework agreement and did encode a matrimonial real property law. We exercise it when called upon.
Mr. Louie: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have that list before me. Across Canada, 17 First Nations have matrimonial laws in place from the framework agreement with First Nations today. We have several on the list that are actually in the developmental phase of those matrimonial laws. The requirement is that each of the communities that pass land codes would complete matrimonial laws.
Senator Campbell: The stories that you tell here are really quite amazing. I know that we — certainly I — need to hear more of these stories. I can take these stories then when someone questions me about what we are doing here and that we do not know what is going on and I can point out to them that there are huge success stories out there. It is just amazing.
We will obviously be talking about it, and I do not want to be too flippant here, but $3 million is not much money for what I see as tremendous benefits. If you could get 8 per cent return on your money we would be really happy. In these times, I would be mortgaging everything and getting it all. When you talk 10 times, even if it is not everyone's 10 times, if you could just double your money, imagine.
I think it is important, when we have success stories, to help them and further them. I want to thank you. I bet I could get one from every single of the 37. Everyone must be like Chief Bear and have this story of what was and what can now be. I want to thank you very much.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for giving us the information. We are actually doing a study right now on education on reserves from kindergarten to grade 12 and looking for a framework that education would fit into in terms of the delivery of education by the communities for their children. I wonder if you, with your experience in developing this framework, would have any advice that you could give us.
I think we are very cognizant of the fact that the framework must come from the people. All across Canada the situations are so different, and yet you have managed to put a framework in place that works everywhere. I would be interested if you had any insight on that.
Mr. McCue: I appreciate the question. Education is very important to our First Nation. We were the first community to pass our land code in Canada. The driving force was that it was community-driven. In terms of anything that is being developed, you must have the support of the community in what you are developing.
I think that is where you have the similarities across Canada. If you have community support, although our land codes differ somewhat, there is that significance in the fact that we have these similarities with our friends in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Once we had that template developed of our land codes, other communities focused on the main aspects such as economic development and the matrimonial property.
Our committee is made up of the elders and the youth. Being an island community, the majority of our membership does not reside on the First Nation; it resides off the First Nation. Our committee consisted of components of all aspects of our membership.
Having said that, I think you have to have total community input, whether they support it, or somehow you have to get their opinions and incorporate that. The driving force is ownership. That is how you will establish a framework.
Senator Raine: Did you start developing the framework in your community from scratch, or did you have a template? Did you have some advice from other people? How long did it take?
Mr. McCue: We were the first community in Canada to develop our land code, and we did it from scratch. We had advisers from our lands resource centre, but we were basically breaking the trail in doing our own land code, and the legislation from the framework. Our land code was developed out of the air. We knew we did not like living under the Indian Act. We could not do that any longer. We had no control of our lands and destiny.
What we did with our community meetings, we said there must be a better system for us to control our lands and our own lives. What we developed, with the input of the whole community and membership, was the first land code.
Senator Raine: There was a framework there from somewhere, but the code is yours?
Mr. McCue: We actually had to develop a land code and pass it before the framework legislation would come in. When the existing government was going to pass the legislation, they needed two communities to pass a land code before they could even pass the legislation. Our code was in place and voted on before the legislation was even passed.
Senator Raine: That is great.
Mr. McCue: As a side note, over 96 per cent of our community voted in favour of our land code. That was because of their involvement.
Senator Raine: Congratulations. I am sure you are in hot demand as an adviser.
Senator Demers: I will go live on your property. Everybody is so well organized.
The Chair: You have become quite popular, Mr. McCue.
Senator Sibbeston: There are 600-some odd bands in our country. I think, philosophically speaking, every band, I am sure, in the country wants to have more control over their lands.
Looking at the number of bands that have signed on to the framework agreement and have their own land codes, what do you see are the elements, factors or qualities that make these people want to enter into this regime? What is the difference between you and others who do not subscribe to this framework and have their own land code?
Everybody generally ideally wants to have control, and there is a process now in place to make that possible, but most bands do not have control. What are the elements or qualities that allow some bands to become involved in this system, to organize themselves and develop? Have you considered that?
Mr. Louie: Yes, Senator Sibbeston. Thank you very much for your question. We certainly have. When we look across the country and hear the chiefs, councils and land managers, we know that when they come to us and say, "We want to be the fully recognized decision makers, we want the jurisdiction," they know that with that jurisdiction, they can enhance economic development activities and governance of their lands and resources. It is that drive towards wanting to be a recognized government that is a very significant element or factor.
We realize not every First Nation in Canada is currently ready, willing or able to take on the challenge of land management, but many are. Those who want that direct decision making and those who have the opportunities and economic development, knowing that if they are the decision makers they can get through the red tape that has impeded their development — we know the Indian Act has all kinds of constraints dealing with development. We know with the involvement of departments either at the regional level or at Ottawa headquarters, they do not have enough manpower to properly address the issues, so we need to cut through that red tape.
We know from experience that if the First Nations have that recognized decision making, decisions can be made quickly and more efficiently in order to match the speed of business. I believe that is an element and a demand that exists there. Those are some areas.
Others fully recognize that their accountability is to their constituents, and they want to ensure they have good governance in place. That accountability is very important. Having the reporting directly to their constituents and having their laws in place that avoid any conflicts of interest by their elected leaders are things that the communities, the members themselves, are demanding. This is another element, I believe, that enhances it. We have heard that across the country.
The fact that the investors and the banking industry all support this movement just proves the significance of it. Those are just some of the examples. I believe my colleague, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, wishes to add to that.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould: I will add on to Chief Louie's comments. Thank you for the question. To be forthright, among a lot of First Nations in this country, there is still a fear of change, a fear of moving beyond the status quo.
Having said that, I believe with the situation now, at this time, the time is right. The National Chief and other leaders have called for a movement beyond the Indian Act, and that was not necessarily the case 20 years ago. In fact, the majority of First Nations in British Columbia and at least one third of the First Nations across Canada are engaged in some form of governance reform.
What does that framework look like? In my view, it looks like a nation-building framework wherein we support First Nations when they are ready, willing and able to move beyond the Indian Act and to be able to do so without the Government of Canada playing a gatekeeper role.
I know some senators in this room have been looking at this question of governance, governance reform and recognition of First Nations self-government for quite some time longer than I have, but I truly believe we are in a period wherein we can support First Nations, ensuring no community is left out or behind, but moving forward and having First Nations, when they are ready, be able to develop their own institutions of government without the Government of Canada standing in the way.
Senator Sibbeston: I know from my own life and experience that there is a lot of fear. In the Northwest Territories, where we have come from the land and from a traditional life much more recently than other First Nations across the country, people are comfortable with the traditional life. It is almost like not wanting to become a White man, not wanting to become sophisticated; they would rather just be where they have been. To be rich or to be in business is not considered a good, positive thing. It is like being co-opted into the system. There is a mentality involved, an unwillingness to be bold and take a chance to get on with being part of Canadian society.
There have been some groups in the North like the Inuvialuit in the delta area that have been successful and have embarked upon and embraced economic development. They have done very well. On the other hand, there have been other groups that have hung back and have not been certain; they do not have the confidence and trust to make bold moves.
I think it involves that mentality. Obviously those that have been successful are those that are sophisticated and have had enough experience and confidence in themselves to forge forward and do all the things that other Canadians do to be successful in business, to be rich, to wear suits with ties and walk around proudly with briefcases, that whole different world. It is the business world that we are talking about and that native people are getting into. Do you think I am right?
Mr. Louie: Yes, senator, I believe you are. I would like to make this point clear, if I may, with what you have just indicated, that the First Nation does not necessarily have to be next to a municipality to take advantage of what we are talking about here with land management.
For example, one of our communities two hours north of Prince George, the McLeod Lake First Nation, is fairly remote, but they are an operational First Nation. Why? Because they saw the need and had the desire to take jurisdiction over their forestry lands. I understand they have quite valuable forestry lands, so management over resources was a key component.
Another community, The Pas in Northern Manitoba, is a little bit more remote than many of the other communities, but they have resources. They have water and environmental issues, and to protect those environmental sensitivities, they have clearly chosen that it is of benefit to them to have that decision making and control. That is very important.
I know when you look across the country — we hear it every day and I am exposed to it every day in my own community — the entrepreneurial attitudes have certainly grown. The need for business investments and the knowledge that business brings I think is certainly a driving force.
Education is critical. We know that as First Nations develop in land management authority and in management and experiences that come with that and businesses created, there is extreme demand that did not exist before to pursue and go after the education at the higher levels. I know my own community has seen that, and our education levels are increasing dramatically.
We have estimated that within the next generation we could well exceed the normal levels of the non-native population in our education. That is what we are after. We are going to get there. I see that the need and the demand are out there. This provides that opportunity to pursue those higher educational levels and the need to be involved in business. This is really taking root throughout Canada. I think it is extremely important.
Senator Raine, in answer to your question about education, this framework agreement is part of what you mentioned. The framework agreement is the same on the educational requirements. The rebuilding of governance itself is something that is very demanding, and we have been associated with and had the support of some of the expert scholars or expert course curriculum developers. We have put together some of the educational needs in that regard. We know that it is needed. We know that education is a definite requirement to have the experienced and trained land managers, administrators, economic development officers. There is a need for that, and the demand is very high across this country.
If I may, there is just one point I want to clarify for the record. I apologize, as I think I may have misled the honourable senators here with regard to the additional $6 million. My colleagues here have corrected me. It is $6 million per year. I have confused somewhat the developmental and the operational needs. Right now, per year, Canada has approved $24.1 million for the First Nations we have. My point, for the record, is that with an extra $6 million, which would average about $30 million per year, we could offer developmental and operational, both. I wish that to be noted. I apologize for misleading the committee on that. That was my error.
Mr. Bear: Senator Raine asked a question specifically about education and the study that this committee is doing with respect to, in general terms, First Nation education. I do not think anyone answered your question. You suggested perhaps a framework, somewhat similar to the accomplishments that we are experiencing through the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management. I know that the Assembly of First Nations and PTOs across the country are working diligently on First Nations education, and some of the requirements.
If I may suggest, as you delve into your study and learn more about the plight — I will use that term — of First Nations education, I think you will want to look at the disparity and inequities between First Nations education and the rest of Canada. I believe and most Canadians believe that every child in this country has a right to quality education. First Nations particularly have other rights identified in treaties, and particularly I will refer to the numbered treaties. It is clear. In the inequities of education, we have a community school in the Muskoday First Nation, and the funding for education provided by the government and, we believe, under treaty is far different than the funding provided through government and other means to public schools. For example, for tuition, in our community school, K to 9, the tuition is just over $2,000 a year per child. We have children going to a neighbouring town and city, and the tuition we pay to the public school and the separate schools is over $6,000 a year. In terms of education support, which education system would it suggest has the better resources for better quality education? That, in your study, should be examined.
Senator Meredith: Thank you so much for appearing before us this evening. I did not hear it, but I read briefly, chief, your presentation here. I am encouraged by what I am hearing. Mr. Bear, you have indicated that the time is right. I concur with you that the time is right for First Nations people across this country for education and economic development, for housing and health. The time is right. You have my support wherever we can, especially around the young people, whom I am passionate about. As a businessman for 20-odd years, I know what it is like to run a business and to get people engaged and empowered to start their own enterprises and take control of their own destiny.
All of this being said, education is part of it, chief. We have been doing this study on it. You are absolutely right about the quality of education. Every young person across this country deserves the right to a good education. That takes into consideration the next generation you talked about, chief, being developed and empowered to take over your leadership. Someone has to be mentored, and I believe in that.
In terms of all the land development that is going on, what are you doing to ensure that your linguistic and cultural heritage is being preserved and passed on to the next generation?
My second question is around the wind and solar energy that you have embarked upon in Northern Ontario. Has that been profitable, and do you see an expansion of that going forward across other bands?
My third question is to inquire about the other six or seven communities that need to be brought on board. How quickly do you envision that taking place? Is it all contingent on the $30 million that you are indicating that you would need to continue the program?
Mr. Louie: I would like to perhaps address two of your questions, and perhaps my colleague, Mr. McCue, could deal with the issue with regard to wind and solar energy, as his First Nation is directly involved in pursuit of that.
On the culture and heritage, I will give you the perspective from my own community at Westbank. We are finding now, as we proceed in the modern world, if you will, as we get more and more urbanized, that we are reverting more and more back to our culture. We see the pride that is growing within the children and our community itself. Language retention has become one of our priorities. The cultural preservation of who we are as a people is being more and more recognized. We are finding that. It may seem odd as a developing First Nation in the modern world, but we are seeing that if we take monies which we now can create through the economic development activities and hire the trained teachers and linguists and have monies to support some of the powwows and events, that is rejuvenating and regenerating a certain strong growth in our community. I am very pleased that you asked that question, because that is exactly what is happening in my community and I believe across this country. I believe the pride among our people has certainly grown. Any enhancement of the education levels and the development and hopefully monies that can allow for these programs and some of these matters to proceed is so desperately needed. That is, in fact, what I see happening in that area.
There are seven or eight developmental First Nations that are in the process right now. Some of these communities are close to a land code vote. I hope to see a vote take place as early as next month, in December, in British Columbia. We have the First Nations that are now part of the seven. They are now well into the developmental phase. We hope to see, if not by the end of this calendar year, then by well into 2012, that all seven will have voted. We are hoping very much that they will all be positive votes. That is under way now.
With regard to wind and solar, I had the opportunity in New York a month ago to attend the World Indigenous Business Forum. During that forum, I presented some of the updated issues with regard to the First Nations across Canada, and there are several across Canada that are involved in solar and wind energy. Perhaps my colleague Mr. McCue could answer that, since his community is directly involved in that endeavour.
Mr. McCue: Thank you for your question and your comments on wind energy. Our community saw this as an initiative for economic development. Through the studies that we have done, we have seen that it is quite viable and economical. It also helps with our relationship that we have with the earth and the land, and it is something that our community supported wholeheartedly. We had a referendum, and the votes came out over two to one in favour of moving forward with this initiative.
Senator Meredith: Are there any preliminary numbers yet in terms of amounts generated? I know you signed it last year, in 2010. Has it been implemented yet or is it still in its infancy?
Mr. McCue: It is still in its infancy. We are presently restructuring our project and looking at the numbers that are projected. We had wind studies for several years. If you were in our First Nation in January and February and if you were to see the cold winds that blow to the north, there would be no need for those studies, but you have to do the due diligence.
Senator Meredith: You have the wind.
Mr. McCue: We have to do that for our partners. We have a partnership going with investors. It shows that it will be profitable for our First Nation.
Two other First Nations that are in our report, such as the Henvey Inlet First Nation, are doing on a larger scale what we are doing with wind. The Alderville First Nation, near Peterborough, Ontario, is doing a solar farm. It is great for our First Nations to create an economic development venture, as well as to promote our relationship with the earth and with green power.
Senator Meredith: Excellent. Thank you so much.
Senator Patterson: I have some very specific questions. You had the privilege of being audited by the Auditor General in 2005 and 2009, I believe. The 2009 audit was a bit concerned about support for training and capacity building for land management. I know you have a resource centre, and it has had some funding problems in the past.
The new agreement you recently signed with Canada, does that address some of the funding issues for the resource centre? Will that be dealt with through that agreement?
Mr. Louie: Yes, it partly addresses that. There is a need to enhance the training that is currently being made available. We have had the misfortunate in past years to not have the dollars that would adequately address the training and capacity building. We have been able to survive and it is still flourishing, but it has the capability of flourishing so much more.
In the proposed funding agreement, which will start April 1, 2012, some dollars can be allocated toward training and capacity building. It will certainly go much further in addressing that particular issue. Today, we do not have that.
For clarity, we have never received $24.1 million, even though that was previously approved by government many years ago. We have only been allocated what we have had to work with.
With this new agreement with Canada, the minister has committed to us — and our chiefs have agreed — that the $24.1 million will start effective April 1 of 2012, and it will certainly go a long way to address the issue you raised. We are looking forward to that.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that.
Without being critical, I understand as well that there is a challenge with developing the environment protection laws that I believe you are required to put in place within a period after the land code takes effect. If I understand correctly, no agreement has been included to date. I may be wrong about that.
You mentioned a recommended legislative amendment that would help deal with environment protection laws, I believe. Will that assist in getting these environmental protection laws developed, or are there other holdups that we should know about?
Mr. Louie: First, in terms of whether there are any environmental agreements concluded with First Nations, the answer is no. You are correct; there are none. However, with the framework agreement, supported by the legislation itself, there is a requirement by Canada to support the First Nations to do the environmental laws.
We have done the necessary background work. We know that is in the making. These amendments will certainly enhance that. It will bring on the environmental laws as the responsibility of the First Nations. There is a commitment and a need for funding. The dollars, we are told — and this has been supported by the agreement we have with the minister — are to help start that process as of April 1, 2012.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. Part of my question was already answered. To clarify it for me: The funding you get from the federal government comes in the form of core funding that flows through to the communities that they then — under the framework, the land code that they put in place — administer themselves. They do not need to go back all the time to AAND cap in hand, asking for this on a constant basis. The core funding flows directly to the bands and it is now managed by the First Nations.
Mr. Louie: Yes, for the operational First Nations, that is in fact what happens. Each region is slightly different, but the intent is that the dollars will flow directly to the operational First Nations. For the developmental First Nations, of course, that is a different matter. There is only reimbursement as the costs are incurred, and they are quite limited.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I would like to thank the panel. It was 15 years ago — do you remember, Chief Louie and Chief Bear? — that I had the honour and privilege of working on the original Bill C-49 with you. You made promises then, and you have kept your promises. You said it would be an economic generator for the First Nations across the country, and it has happened.
You are right, Regional Chief Wilson; we did have a self-government bill, which was enabling legislation that might have helped if we had been able to get it through.
All in all, we are making some progress, although it could go faster. I make the commitment — and I think I can speak on behalf of the committee — that when the amendments come through, we will work diligently together, as we always have on this committee, in a non-partisan way as much as possible, to expedite the process so that you can continue on your journey of success.
Senator Patterson: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I want to thank you for your presentations and your forthright responses to the senators' questions.
Senators, if there is no other business, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)