Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 10 - Evidence - February 7, 2012
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 7, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:31 a.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 (topic: additions to reserves).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Bonjour and good morning. 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 CPAC or possibly on the World Wide Web.
I am Gerry St. Germain, from British Columbia, and I have the honour of chairing this committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters related to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. Today we will be embarking on a new topic, additions to reserve. The phrase "additions to reserve" refers to the process of adding land to existing reserves or adding land to new reserves.
In June 2011, Canada, as represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and First Nations, as represented by the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, National Chief, agreed to a joint action plan to improve the long-term prosperity for First Nations people and all Canadians. The Canada-First Nations Joint Action Plan includes a commitment to explore concrete initiatives aimed at unlocking the economic potential of First Nations, including improvements to the additions to reserve, ATR, policy.
Witnesses for this study should be asked to provide their views and observations on the current ATR policy and its associated processes and will be encouraged to offer their suggestions on how to overcome the various deficiencies with the current policy and process.
This morning we will hear from two departments, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada.
[Translation]
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are here this morning.
[English]
From the province of British Columbia, we have Senator Larry Campbell. Next to him is Senator Munson, from New Brunswick.
Senator Munson: My heart is in New Brunswick. I am an Ontario senator.
The Chair: Senator Raine is from the province of British Columbia. Next to her, we have Senator Dagenais from the province of Quebec. Next to him, also from Quebec, is Senator Demers. Last but definitely not least, we have Senator Patterson, from Nunavut.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Natural Resources Canada. From Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we have Margaret Buist, Director General, Lands and Environmental Management; Andrew Beynon, Director General, Community Opportunities; and Anik Dupont, Director General, Specific Claims. Good morning.
From Natural Resources Canada, we have Jean Gagnon, Deputy Surveyor General, Surveyor General Branch; Peter Sullivan, Surveyor General and International Boundary Commissioner, Surveyor General Branch; Brian Ballantyne, Senior Advisor, Land Tenure and Boundaries, Surveyor General Branch; and Brian Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector.
Witnesses, we look forward to your brief presentations, which will be followed by questions from senators, I am sure. We will go first to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. I believe it was agreed upon amongst you that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada would go first.
Margaret Buist, Director General, Lands and Environmental Management, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you very much. I want to compliment you on pronouncing every single person's last name correctly. It never happens with my name, which is Gaelic, or with Mr. Beynon's name.
The Chair: I have to tell you the truth. Do not give me the credit. We get too much credit for things we did not do. Our good clerk is the one who briefed me. Thank you. You made me look good, and that is not easy. Go ahead. I am sorry for the interruption.
Ms. Buist: Thank you. You have my speaking notes. We have also provided you with a deck presentation that has more information on additions to reserve that you may refer to or ask us questions about, if you wish. I will not be taking you through the deck, just through my speaking notes today.
Thank you very much for providing us with the opportunity to speak with you today on the subject of additions to reserve. My branch is directly responsible for additions to reserve. That is why I am primarily speaking to you. With me today are two other experts on this topic. Andrew Beynon is the Director General of Community Opportunities, and in his role he is responsible for the AFN joint working group negotiations that are ongoing with respect to revising a portion of the ATR policy. He is also responsible for modern legislation, like First Nations Land Management, which gives options for First Nations to manage their lands outside of the Indian Act regime.
I am also here with Anik Dupont, Director General, Specific Claims. She does the front end of additions to reserve — the negotiations of claims under the treaty land entitlement frameworks that result in additions to reserve as part of the implementation of the claims when they are settled.
Today, we will take you through the reserve creation process, its legal origins and our departmental policies and describe to you some of the issues and challenges faced by the various stakeholders involved in reserve creation. Finally, I would like to highlight for you some of the achievements and milestones that we have accomplished with respect to reserve creation and answer some of the questions you may have about this particular topic.
Lands have been added to reserves over time for many reasons: as part of historic treaties; to settle claims; for exchange of lands, when lands have had to be expropriated; to accommodate expanding reserve populations; and, most recently, for economic development purposes. We operate under a decade-old policy to guide our decisions on when and how lands will be added to existing reserves or when new reserves will be created. We acknowledge that that policy and its associated procedures are time-consuming, expensive and complex.
Many issues have been raised in the past by First Nations and by other parties, including the Office of the Auditor General, who in 2005 and 2009 criticized the government for the delays and costs involved in the ATR process. Our department has responded to these criticisms by revisiting the 10-year-old policy, by establishing a joint working group with the Assembly of First Nations to examine policy change and by creating changes within our internal procedures and systems to try to make the ATR process much more efficient.
The changes, I am pleased to tell you, have begun to show progress. In the last five years, we have made significant gains in adding lands to reserves. Since 2001, one million acres of land have been added to reserves in Canada with more than two thirds of that in the last five years. More is yet to be done, and we are committed to working directly with First Nations to continue finding improvements to our systems. Challenges will continue because new claims are being negotiated all the time in the Prairie provinces and in Ontario, in particular. That will very much add to the amount of land to be added to reserve.
To start with some basics regarding what a reserve is, I will review some background information to set the stage for understanding our challenges. A reserve is a tract of land that has been set apart for the use and benefit of a band, the legal title to which is vested in the Crown. Title is held by the federal Crown, not the provincial Crown, who has the authority to create reserves. The land, when it is set aside as a reserve, is for the benefit of the entire band, not any one individual who is a band member.
Reserve creation is the process of setting apart land by way of Royal Prerogative, not the Indian Act. There is a long history of reserve creation in Canada beginning with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. There are two types of reserve creations. One is an addition to reserve, which is the granting of reserve status to a parcel of land that is added to an existing reserve. The other is a new reserve, which is the granting of reserve status to land that is not within the area of an existing community. According to our Additions to Reserves/New Reserves Policy, ATR proposals are for land located in the general geographic area of an existing reserve to which services and infrastructure can be extended at little or no cost. New reserve proposals are for land not in the geographic area and are much more costly and, therefore, less common.
For the three Prairie provinces, ATRs are reinforced by optional legislation, so it is not just the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that creates those additions to reserves. We have the claim settlements implementation acts, which allow land to be set aside as reserve by a ministerial order rather than by the Governor-in-Council and provide for pre-reserve designations of land, which allow the land to be developed once the ATR is approved.
In addition, in the three Prairie provinces, there are treaty land entitlement tripartite framework agreements negotiated between Canada, the province and First Nations. They are specific claim settlement agreements — settled historic claims — that allow First Nations to be compensated for lands owed to them under the historic treaties, which apply in the Prairie provinces, as you know. Lands are acquired through the TLE process and are converted to reserve in accordance with our Additions to Reserves/New Reserves Policy.
I will talk now a little bit about our policy in Aboriginal Affairs. Any proposal for an addition to reserve or creation of a new reserve has to fit in one of three existing policy categories. The first category is legal obligations, which result from treaty or claim settlement agreements, from court orders, which is not as common, or for other legal reasons, such as a return or exchange of lands expropriated under the Indian Act, for example, railway lands. The second category is community additions, which are for community growth, creating a need for additional land for housing, schools, community economic projects and infrastructure enhancements. This category also includes the return of unsold surrendered land. Land is surrendered under the Indian Act for various reasons. If it is not sold to a third party, it can be returned to reserve land under this category. The third category is what I have mentioned to you previously: the new reserve creation as well as a large group called "other reasons." All proposals that do not fall within the other two categories would fall within this one. Examples are new reserves for landless bands; relocations of bands due to natural disasters, such as flooding; or for economic development purposes. The policy is restrictive for this category and requires extensive justification.
Currently a fourth category is under discussion with the Assembly of First Nations. This category arises out of the creation of the new Specific Claims Tribunal Canada. The tribunal will have the power to order compensation to First Nations when they succeed in their claims before the tribunal. It is anticipated that many First Nations will use this compensation to purchase lands to add to reserve. That is not really covered under the previous three categories, so a new category is being discussed and negotiated at the AFN joint working group table.
I will talk now a little bit about some of the issues and challenges that face us in reserve creation. When I say "us," I mean all of us: First Nations, municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. Amongst the most important of these challenges are tax loss issues, consistency in land use, zoning, complexity of negotiation processes and the time and resources involved in the reserve creation process.
There are many positive examples of reserve communities contributing to the quality of life of neighbouring municipalities, but there is still an element of resistance to the notion of creating new reserves. It is not just located with municipalities, but it is something that we do observe from time to time. First Nations and the federal and provincial governments must work together to explain the benefits and necessity of reserve creation so that the proposals from First Nations can proceed for the benefit of all Canadians.
Municipalities express concern about the loss of taxes when a reserve is created. First Nations are required to negotiate tax loss adjustment to compensate for the effect of a reduced tax base and for the reduction of municipal services. This is not meant to compensate a municipality indefinitely for the gross level of lost taxes, and that is the main concern that municipalities have raised with our department.
Another concern raised by municipalities is consistency in the application of land use planning and zoning on adjacent reserves. Once land has been added to reserve, it is the First Nation, not the municipality, who has the authority to determine how those lands will be used according to the needs and interests of the community. The municipality no longer has legal jurisdiction over reserve lands. As a prerequisite to the approval of an addition to reserve, First Nations need to negotiate areas of joint land use planning and bylaw harmonization. That can involve anything, for example, agreements with respect to basic services such as sewers, water and hydro. The negotiation of municipal service agreements, when required, negotiations related to purchasing the land and negotiations with third parties who may have interests in the land that First Nations want to acquire, such as easements, leases and permits, contribute significantly to the delays experienced in the reserve conversion process.
At this point in time, there are no formal dispute resolution mechanisms in place when negotiations break down, and sometimes additions to reserve can languish for decades if those negotiations fail. Municipalities have expressed concern that First Nations and Aboriginal Affairs are able to proceed with reserve creation without municipal consent. First Nations have expressed concern that municipalities and third parties who refuse to negotiate agreements in good faith can hold up or completely stop a reserve creation.
A final challenge I bring to your attention is the cost of the reserve creation process. First, the cost of purchasing land at fair market value is prohibitive for First Nations, particularly where urban or resource-rich lands are being sought and the First Nation only has a fixed amount of compensation from a settlement to purchase these lands. In addition, the cost of completing surveys and the environmental site assessments to make sure that the land is clean enough to add to reserve are escalated when reserve land is remotely located.
As I have tried to demonstrate to you, the issues and challenges raised here today have a significant impact on the level of resources required and the length of time it takes to add lands to reserve. Canada, working with the Assembly of First Nations, is tackling these issues head-on and is beginning to make significant progress in this area.
In terms of addressing the challenges, our department and First Nations have begun to do this. For example, we have the National Aboriginal Lands Managers Association, or NALMA. Together with our department, they have created an ATR tool kit for First Nations in order to assist them with developing their proposals. We have implemented an electronic national ATR tracking system to monitor and to provide a project management tool to assist us internally, and we are about to go externally with that in the coming years so that First Nations can check on the progress of their ATRs.
We are reviewing our own internal processes that flow from the policy that I have described to you, and we are looking for efficiencies. We are developing more tools to assist First Nations with the negotiation of municipal service agreements and third-party interests. As I indicated to you, this is often a place where additions to reserve stall. We are looking for ways to help First Nations in those negotiations.
We are also — and you will hear more about this — working closely with our colleagues at National Resources Canada, NRCan, to find efficiencies in the way we conduct surveys, which are a necessary part of additions to reserve. Finally, as I mentioned, work is under way with the Assembly of First Nations to explore policy changes for the Additions to Reserves/New Reserves Policy that hope to address the issues and challenges I have described to you.
As I indicated at the beginning, over the past 10 years, over a million acres of land have been added to reserve, despite the challenges that I have set out for you. In addition, since 2006, the treaty land entitlement specific claims agreements have provided the potential for more than half a million acres of future ATRs. These treaty land entitlement agreements in the Prairie provinces, when fully implemented over the next few years, will result in the conversion to reserve of over two million acres of land in Saskatchewan and a million acres of land in Manitoba — more than twice the size of P.E.I.
To date, approximately 61 per cent of the land selected by First Nations in Saskatchewan has been converted to reserve and 43.5 per cent in Manitoba. More agreements are being negotiated in those two provinces, as well as Ontario, which will add even more land to reserve in the coming years.
The additions to reserve respect Canada's legal obligations to First Nations and provide for additional land for much-needed housing, infrastructure and economic development opportunities. Our department is committed to working with First Nations to try to meet the challenges of adding land to reserve while we are also exploring other avenues for land tenure under legislation other than the Indian Act, such as the First Nations Land Management Act.
The Chair: Thank you. Now we will go to Natural Resources Canada.
Brian Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada: We submitted ahead of time a nine-page written brief that I hope you all have, and also a nine-page deck. We would like to walk you through the deck. The title of the deck is "The Role of Natural Resources Canada in the Additions to First Nations Reserves Process."
[Translation]
I am going to start the presentation and then I will yield the floor to Peter Sullivan. As the chair has pointed out, Mr. Sullivan is the Surveyor General and International Boundary Commissioner. We will now move to slide 2.
[English]
If you turn to page 2 of the deck, the question is why is Natural Resources Canada involved in this process. The first point is that the Minister of Natural Resources Canada has the administration, direction and control of surveys under the Canada Lands Surveys Act. Subject to this direction of the minister, the Surveyor General has the responsibility for the management of legal surveys under the Canada Lands Surveys Act. The minister shall cause surveys to be made of Canada Lands on the request of a minister of any department of the Government of Canada. The Surveyor General Branch is located in the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada.
In the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada, we have the Geomatics Canada group. It contains expertise in the Government of Canada for surveying and mapping. Among the three branches there is the Surveyor General Branch, the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing and, third, the Mapping Information Branch. The Surveyor General Branch works closely with scientists and engineers in each part of the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada to provide the most effective solutions for the surveying needs of our federal government.
If we could turn to page 3, what exactly are Canada Lands? We have tried to illustrate it here on page 3. First, north of 60, all Crown lands in the territories are depicted here, if you have coloured copies, in green. Second, we have Canada's offshore area, depicted in blue there, which comprises about 6.5 million square kilometres. Third, as we have tried to depict with the green dots across the southern part of Canada, there are the First Nations reserves. There are 3,000-plus reserves, so these dots do not represent exactly one to one. For example, 1,700 of the reserves are found in British Columbia. To give you a relative idea, we scattered some green dots on this page.
The fourth point here and the fourth component of Canada Lands are the national parks system. Also, in this slide we have illustrated in the red dots where the surveyor general offices are located. All these offices are co-located with other federal departments, for example, key land administrators such as Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
As we turn to page 4, I will turn this over to Mr. Sullivan, Surveyor General. They are the technical experts in this domain.
Peter Sullivan, Surveyor General and International Boundary Commissioner, Surveyor General Branch, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, senators, for the opportunity to present this morning.
[Translation]
Subject to the direction of the minister, as the Surveyor General, I have responsibility for the management of surveys on Canada lands.
The surveyor general's mandate is first to manage and regulate legal surveys, set standards, manage parcel and boundary data, provide legal parcels for land transactions and provide a legal registry for land survey records. Second, the mandate is to manage Canada's survey programs, meaning the property and boundary survey services required by the Government of Canada on Canada lands.
[English]
This includes any legal surveys, or land surveys, for comprehensive land claims, specific claims, additions to First Nations lands and national parks. The majority of surveys are contracted to the private sector, and they are made official or legal after processing into the survey registry.
Both programs facilitate and protect the integrity of land transactions for government and First Nations users and external land and resource developers. Survey programs are delivered using the most efficient technical solutions available, including high-resolution satellite imagery, precise global positioning surveys and geographic information systems.
The result is assurance about the spatial extent, which is the location, dimensions and area of the rights in the lands involved in a transaction are in a community.
This certainty also ensures that Canada minimizes any boundary or encroachment liability in acquiring administration and control of a parcel of provincial land. Such liability has the potential to create uncertainty and conflict and impede economic development opportunities in First Nation communities and also on adjacent provincial lands.
We are moving to slide 5, which gives a high-level overview of NRCan's role in the ATR process. There are three baskets of activities: conducting research and providing advice on boundary and parcel information; managing the actual surveys that may be required — they are not always required and I will explain that in a moment; and preparing the legal land descriptions required for every land transfer.
Lands to be added to reserves through the additions to reserve process are transferred from provincial jurisdiction, either private or public lands. Until they are transferred to First Nation reserve and Canada land status, the provincial legal framework applies to surveys and boundary definition. The provinces have a key role to play in the survey process for additions to reserve.
If the lands to be transferred are provincial Crown lands — and preferably vacant Crown lands — a new survey will normally be required. If the lands are existing private lands, or fee simple lands, there is often an existing survey that can be used for legal description purposes. In either case the objective is to have an accurate legal description of the lands involved with boundaries and third-party interests easily and unambiguously identified on the ground. This is all to produce the certainty and predictability required for economic development on both sides of the boundary.
Moving to slide 6, which provides an overview of the activity for additions to reserve and how much land has actually been involved to date, you also see that the type of addition to reserve varies across provinces. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are dominated by treaty land entitlement, as described by my colleagues from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, which means that Canada has an unfulfilled treaty obligation to add land, whereas Atlantic Canada, Quebec and British Columbia are dominated by community additions to reserves. This is to accommodate population growth and economic development. Ontario and Alberta have a mix of both types of ATR.
All regions can have additions to reserves from specific land claims. The point is that NRCan's role varies across jurisdictions. It even varies between Manitoba and Saskatchewan within the TLE process. I will provide examples towards the end of the opening statements.
What is being done to improve the process? NRCan is working very closely with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada towards program development and renewal to ensure that we have the appropriate capacity to deliver on upcoming programs. NRCan is being engaged with Aboriginal Affairs and with First Nations as early as possible in the land selection process. This is important to ensure that boundary and title issues are identified as early as possible in the process, and to ensure that parcels that are selected will be effective for ongoing land administration.
Within the last year the provincial governments in Manitoba and Ontario have added land survey capacity to help expedite processing of Aboriginal projects including ATRs because, as I said, the provinces play a major role in the process.
Access to professional surveyors is being expanded through labour mobility agreements. Licensed surveyors from Canadian jurisdictions can now work across provincial and territorial boundaries with a minimal certification process. The Surveyor General has collaborated with the Association of Canada Land Surveyors and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to facilitate labour mobility. In this process, two additional land surveyors in Manitoba, six in Saskatchewan and four in Ontario have recently been licensed using this process.
NRCan, through the Surveyor General — myself — chairs the Canadian Council on Geomatics subcommittee on surveys to discuss and address common survey issues that include those that impact land transfers. The committee has representatives from each provincial and territorial government.
Finally, a joint working group has been formed between the Assembly of First Nations and Canada, as mentioned previously, with the specific mandate to review the ATR process and provide recommendations for improvements. Canada's representatives include Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Department of Justice, and Natural Resources Canada. Dr. Brian Ballantyne, my colleague with me today, represents Natural Resources Canada on that committee.
To close the presentation, I have provided three examples. The first is the Qu'Appelle Valley in Saskatchewan, which is slide 7. If you look at the images on there, most of the ATR process in Saskatchewan to date consists of sections, quarter sections and legal subdivisions of land that were surveyed beginning in the 1870s. They are part of original township surveys conducted in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Field surveys for this type of an addition to reserve are largely not required, so NRCan's role there is to review land selections and prepare the legal descriptions and parcel descriptions at the request of Aboriginal Affairs.
You can see the before-ATR and after-ATR images, and the amount of land being added is striking. You can see the small sections or squares represent sections or quarter sections of land that have been transferred to reserve status.
The Chair: These are the grey ones, Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, they are the grey ones.
Slide 8 is two images from Lake Winnipegosis in Manitoba. By contrast, in Manitoba most ATR land selections are on vacant, unsurveyed provincial Crown lands in the northern part of the province. Normally a survey of the land selection is required to be made under provincial regulations. NRCan is an integral part of the field survey process. NRCan would be involved in the land selection process, contracting with the private land surveyor and ensuring the logistics of getting the final survey documents through the process are facilitated.
I provided as the last example, on slide 9, the Mississauga First Nation in Ontario. In some cases ATRs can form parts of specific claims or litigation settlements. For this type of ATR, the role of NRCan is normally to review the survey documents and prepare a legal land description, in a process similar to the Saskatchewan model, but in some cases a survey may be required.
I will close my opening comments at this point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan, and all presenters. We will now go to questions.
Senator Patterson: This all sounds very good, but I think the reason we are here is that we would like to see the process work more effectively and efficiently. There have been a number of studies and reviews of the ATR process, including Aboriginal Affairs' own study of September 2010, Impact Evaluation of Contributions to Indian Bands for Land Management on Reserve.
One of the recommendations in that report, in the interests of streamlining the process and increasing efficiencies, was that the department work toward national ATR legislation that incorporates process and approval improvements to streamline the process and increase efficiency.
What steps, if any, are being taken in relation to that recommendation? Was that the first time that a national ATR legislation was recommended?
Andrew Beynon, Director General, Community Opportunities, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: I will begin the reply to that question, and my colleagues may want to add to it as well.
Yes, you are right that a recommendation along those lines was made. The issue, in part, is what my colleague Ms. Buist mentioned. We have the optional claims implementation legislation that assists with additions to reserves, but it only applies in the Prairie provinces right now. Yes, there has been some thought about perhaps extending the benefits of that legislation nationally now that we know from experience that that legislation has actually been effective and assisted with the process.
In terms of where that might develop, it is likely to be part of the exploration of change with the AFN joint working group on ATR process improvements. In working with the AFN, we have been discussing policy considerations and process for additions to reserve, but we have also begun to explore with them the potential for working jointly on ideas for this national legislation.
Two features of that would be common to the claims implementation legislation from the Prairies, and that is this idea of having authority to have a pre-reserve designation of lands. It is a very effective tool where, before a reserve is created, First Nations membership can decide what use they would like to see of particular parcels of land. That is very helpful in assisting with existing developments that are on parcels of land that people want to acquire. We are exploring that. You may perhaps want to hear from the AFN themselves, but, as I understand it, they have consulted internally and obtained a mandate now to explore with us the idea of legislation.
The last part of your question was whether that was the first time this issue had come up. We can go back and double-check that for you exactly, but I do think that was one of the first times in a report that it came up, at least internally.
Senator Patterson: I was not sure if I understood Ms. Buist correctly. Has the department implemented the national ATR tracking system, or are you in the process of developing it? I did not hear you correctly. I would also like to ask, is that ATR tool kit that you talked about done? Is it available?
Ms. Buist: Yes, we have the national ATR tracking system in place now. It is a tool for all of our regional offices that work directly with the First Nations to input information into to show us what stage the ATRs are at. Are they at the first stage where the First Nation is negotiating the proposal? Have they moved into the second stage where the First Nation has done the band council resolution, it has come into the department and we are waiting for the results of the surveys or environmental assessment? Or is it in my branch, in the headquarters where we are processing the material and doing the checks and balances before it goes to the Governor-in-Council? That is what the system will tell us.
It also is, as I said, a project management tool so we can not only track but assist. If we see something is blocked at a particular stage, something is not happening, we can step in and assist.
We are working on some test pilots with First Nations in the next fiscal year to allow them access so they can see where their own additions to reserve are. That piece is not implemented yet. That is in the next fiscal year.
As to your second question, yes, the ATR tool kit has been developed in conjunction with the NALMA. It is available, and we can get you a copy of it, if you would like to see it.
We are also working with them now on preparing a designations tool kit. A designation is how you take existing reserve land and designate it for leasing. That is a real tool for economic development because you can put commercial leases on reserve land through the designation, so we are developing a tool kit for that as well.
Senator Patterson: Finally, the Auditor General had done an audit in 2005 and 2009 of the treaty lands entitlement process, and the department was criticized for not tracking the overall time it takes to process land selections. I take it, then, that the ATR tracking system, the national system, will directly meet that concern of the Auditor General? You will now be able to track processing times using that tool?
Ms. Buist: That is correct. Layered over that, we have developed service standards to set some particular times for our internal purposes to make sure that we are working as hard and efficiently as we can to move the additions to reserve through the department.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: We were talking about the fact that, when lands are added to reserves, First Nations are required to negotiate agreements for tax losses with the municipalities to compensate for the effect of a reduced tax base and for the reduction of municipal services.
Could you describe the negotiation process for tax loss adjustment between First Nations and the municipalities or federal, provincial and municipal governments? When lands are added, it seems that a tax base adjustment must ensue. Could you describe the process a little? My understanding is that there could be delays because of additions.
Ms. Buist: I can describe the process with the municipalities. There are two very important considerations for First Nations and the municipalities.
[English]
The first is the negotiation of the municipal service agreements. Sorry, I am presenting, and I cannot do that in French. I can talk in the office in French, but I cannot present, sorry.
The municipal service agreements is the first, and the second issue that is of great importance to both municipalities and the First Nations is the taxes and what happens in terms of the tax loss from the municipalities' perspective that occurs. The First Nations do this on their own directly with the municipalities. We are looking now at ways in which we can assist that negotiation process, because it is often where we find additions to reserve get stuck when they cannot reach an agreement on the basic service agreements. As I mentioned in my presentation, particularly if a reserve is close to a municipality, they have to negotiate service agreements for sewers, for hydro to come through, for snow clearing, those sorts of things. The reserve lands are governed by federal law, and the municipal lands are governed by provincial law and the municipal zoning, which does not apply as soon as something becomes a reserve. Reserve land has very limited legal capacity in its bylaws to govern these sorts of issues on reserve through their zoning bylaws, so there is a disconnect that happens.
We are working really closely with First Nations to try to resolve some of that disconnect through a couple of initiatives. One of the things we have going in the department is the survey pilot project, as we call it. We are working closely with NRCan to look at the survey fabric on reserve. We are also doing land use planning, so we have a picture of the reserves through the surveys, we have plans developed with the First Nations for the use of the land, and then overlaid over that is the regulatory or bylaw authority to keep that plan in place. It is what any municipality has in its tool box. First Nations do not necessarily have that.
The surveys on reserve are not necessarily completed internally. Many First Nations do not have land use plans. They do not have a whole picture of how they want to develop the reserve land. The bylaw capacity is very limited on reserve. Fines are very low. Ability to enforce a bylaw is quite challenging for First Nations.
We are looking at a global package to try to improve that on reserve so they can match what is going on next door to them and have the same types of powers, although the legislative authority would be different as a municipality.
In terms of the tax issue you mentioned, I did mention in my presentation that the First Nations try to negotiate agreements for tax losses with the municipalities. We do hear from and work with associations of municipalities. The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee is one we have met with often to try to work through some the issues that municipalities have that I have just described to you. Fundamentally though, no one can stop the reserve. They do not have a veto over that, nor should they. The interests are different.
Mr. Beynon: There is a bit of a dynamic and evolution in this. As Ms. Buist said, it was only 10 or 15 years ago that we struck the treaty land entitlement agreements in the Prairie provinces. In the first few years, there were a lot of discussions between provincial authorities, regional municipal authorities, individual municipalities and First Nations in working out very modern municipal service agreements and exploring tax loss compensation for the first time. Now, as Ms. Buist said, in more recent years you have seen acceleration of this reserve creation and solving of the issues, partly because there is more experience. There are examples of municipal service agreements and tax loss compensation, so experience has been a guide. We are not dealing with a situation where people are having to invent the wheel for the first time.
I think that on the issue of the interaction with municipalities — in many cases at least — good negotiations have made for good neighbours and success is seen on both sides. A First Nation moving ahead with a very strong reserve land base is generating revenues and economic development in the whole area. Municipal service agreements do include a payment to municipalities for the services they provide. It may not be taxes, but at least it is one part of covering costs.
Senator Munson: Welcome to the committee. I am new on this committee, but life is a learning curve. I am always curious and like to ask questions. I did not quite understand you on NRCan's role. There was one part, Mr. Sullivan, where you talked about working on labour mobility. I wonder if you could explain what that means.
Mr. Sullivan: That means that we are trying to ensure that there are enough land surveyors and land surveying capacity to deliver the programs required, particularly the additions to reserve programs. In order for that to happen, we want to ensure that land surveyors can move across provincial boundaries and work with a minimal amount of recertification. Currently, for example, if you want to work in Alberta, you have to be certified by the Alberta Land Surveyors' Association. A similar situation exists in all provinces across the country.
There have been several agreements to help accelerate the certification process. Prior to three or four years ago, as an Alberta land surveyor, if I wanted to work in British Columbia, I would have to article there for about a year or so and then write exams. Today, there is an agreement between Alberta and British Columbia, called the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, TILMA, that allows land surveyors to write a four-hour exam and work in either province. If I am certified in Alberta, I can write the exam and work in British Columbia. The same situation has been extended, through the Agreement on Internal Trade, across all provinces.
We are now trying to ensure we have the capacity to meet the demands of the surveyor requirement. Having more land surveyors available also increases the competition so that we get better value for the Crown. Our role in that, to finally answer your question, is to try to influence that and work with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors.
Senator Munson: That strikes me as an old rule that you see between provinces in so many other categories. How many surveyors are we talking about, and are there national standards for this kind of thing?
Mr. Sullivan: There are national standards for academic qualifications, but the professional standards vary from province to province based on the local land tenure system. Under the Constitution, the local land property rights are the responsibility of the provinces. Each province has an association that certifies their local land surveyors.
Breaking down those interprovincial trade barriers so that we can have surveyors and other professionals move and operate across provincial boundaries relatively easily is certainly a big step forward.
Senator Munson: How many people are we talking about, and are you satisfied that you have enough to do the job?
Mr. Sullivan: There are about 3,000 land surveyors in Canada. It is a very small community, so there are some concerns about the demographics and the long-term sustainability of the profession. However, the profession is putting in place certain initiatives to ensure that we have the capacity, and more educational facilities are being created. We have the labour mobility initiatives and some public relations initiatives to try to encourage young people to get into the profession. We are confident that the numbers will come up. They are fairly healthy in parts of country but still a concern in other parts.
Senator Sibbeston: The Auditor General has pointed out some problems with the treaty land entitlement process, particularly the processing time for converting selected lands to reserve status. I was curious about this. What is the delay? Is it a human sort of delay? Is it dealing with people, or is it a technical thing? In hearing the gentleman from NRCan, I was asking, "Why do we have you people before us to give such a technical kind of report?" I know that there have been advancements in surveying. I had some land surveying done in my hometown this summer, and it looks like a very simple operation. You just set up this little mechanism and it has contact with satellites. It tells you where all the survey pins are, even in the bush, so it is not like the old days where you have to cut lines and know precisely where it is on the ground. This instrument really is able to help and to pinpoint where all the pins are. I know that there have been technical advancements made in the industry, so where is the delay? What has caused the delays that the Auditor General talks about?
Ms. Buist: I will address your question in terms of global delays, but I will turn it over to the Surveyor General to talk about what is involved in the survey part so that you may understand the technical complexities of that issue.
I will reiterate what I said in my presentation, that adding land to reserve is a complex process. Some of that is necessary, and some of it is layers that have built up over time and that can be peeled away to find efficiencies.
It is our responsibility in the federal Crown, and we take title to these lands. It is our responsibility to exercise due diligence in so doing. By that I mean ensuring that the environmental assessment is done, that the lands coming into reserve are as clean as possible environmentally and that the boundaries of that land are properly surveyed. There are also a number of parties involved in these types of negotiations. We talked about the municipalities. The provinces are also involved. Most often, what is brought into reserve is provincial Crown land, so negotiations have to take place. That is sometimes in the form that Ms. Dupont deals with and sometimes not, but negotiations have to take place for the right land. More and more, First Nations are looking for resource-rich land or land in urban areas, which is harder to obtain because it often has third-party interests on it. It is owned by a private person, not necessarily the Crown, and negotiations have to take place for the purchase, which can take several years. Once the land is selected by the First Nation, they need to go through their political process, and a band council resolution is required. I know that many of you are familiar with the inner workings of the politics of bands. At times, it can take a long time to get a band council resolution for a particular piece of land. Once that happens, the surveys take place. As I said, I will let the Surveyor General talk about those challenges. The environmental assessment has to take place, and if any contaminants are found, remediation has to take place on that land before it can be brought in. Funding to pay for the surveys and for the environmental assessment is also a challenge. As I mentioned in my presentation, for the First Nations having enough money to buy the land can also be a challenge, in particular if they are looking for valuable land that has resource potential.
Those are a number of the general reasons why it takes so long. Certainly, anything within our control that comes into the department for processing is looked at very hard so we can find ways to be more efficient in the internal process. I mentioned our tracking system as one tool that we use.
Mr. Sullivan: Before I begin my response, I want a point of clarification. The 3,000 surveyors coast to coast that I mentioned are in the private sector and do not work for Natural Resources Canada. Most of the work is contracted to the private sector.
In terms of your question and your comments regarding surveying, I am glad to see that the surveyors working in your area were using GPS. Most land surveyors in the country are embracing new technology and taking advantage of the efficiencies that they offer, which are incredible.
A lot more work goes on behind the scenes other than just the measuring part. Quite a bit of research is involved to pull all the information on the existing surveys and rights that may exist on the land before the surveyor gets out there to do any measurement at all.
The measurements can sometimes take quite a bit of time to do. If the project is in an isolated area, as Ms. Buist mentioned, the logistics involved, for example in Northern Manitoba, are equivalent to small expeditions. You have to put a camp in place and cut some lines to mark the boundary on the ground. As well, seasonal considerations have to be taken into account that may impact the length of time. After the work is completed and the results are compiled in the office, there is a verification process.
The other piece that can be lengthy is the approval process. In order to make a survey plan legal, everyone who is impacted must have the opportunity to review and approve the plan.
In terms of what we are doing to try to improve that process, we need a long-term view. We are working closely with our colleagues at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada so we can plan when the surveyors need to get out in the field. At some time we have to mark the boundaries of the land on the ground if the lands are to be developed.
Senator Sibbeston: You indicated that NRCan uses contractors most often to do the surveying. Contracting in the federal government can be a slow process. What are you doing to ensure that internal bureaucratic processes do not cause additional delays? I do not mean this in a derogatory or demeaning way, but is there a sense of urgency in your department? Is there a sense that things need to be done quickly? I ask that question because when we deal with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, it seems that things take a lifetime to get done — things that in the normal business world would take just weeks or months. It just seems like things get into the system and stay there forever. Is there a sense of urgency in the department? Is there a sense that people want things done and there is some benefit to doing things quickly?
Mr. Sullivan: There are two parts to the question: One is what we are doing about the contracting process, and the second is whether there is a sense of urgency in terms of trying to improve the bureaucratic processes.
The contracting roles vary across the country. For example, in Manitoba, AANDC manages a standing offer for contracts. They went to that methodology because it is quite efficient. We are trying to reduce the amount of time involved in the contracting process. Recently, NRCan contracts have gone from a request for proposal format to an invitation to tender format. That is to increase efficiency and improve timelines in getting work through the system.
In terms of the urgency to get things done, we have a fairly heavy workload. We are working to improve our service standards and processes as much as possible. We have a project management system in place, and we monitor timelines. Recently we implemented a new system with the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, which helps to improve the process. We work together to eliminate certain steps in the process. We are watching that and hoping that it will help to improve the turnaround times. Certainly, we are cognizant that this work has to move forward and that if this work does not move forward at a good pace, we will become a barrier to economic development. We are cognizant of that issue.
Ms. Buist: About two years ago, the lands branch that I am involved in was merged with economic development for a very good reason. We take the unlocking of economic development potential of lands very seriously. I was brought into this position from the Department of Justice Canada a year ago and given the number one priority of finding efficiencies in the ATR process, amongst the numerous issues that my branch is involved in. As I indicated earlier, we work closely with the regions, which are face to face with the First Nations in every province and try to help them work through the ATR processes. To a person in the regions, we have had a number of meetings in the last year. They have all committed to the priority of looking for efficiencies to see how we can help First Nations at the front end of the process in any way possible. We have put quite a bit of money and time behind this project. As I said, we take it seriously and are working hard on it.
The Chair: Ms. Buist, is the Department of Justice Canada involved in any of these processes? When we studied specific claims, we found that Justice Canada was a major stumbling block. We did the study and today we have the legislation. Sometimes I wonder whether there is a sense of urgency. For example, I might hear that a document is waiting for the minister's signature, but it seems to take the longest time to get through the department. I am thinking of Long Plain, which was completed recently. I think it will be a real success story in Manitoba. I congratulate the department for doing this addition to urban reserve, where the Yellowquill College educational facility has been developed.
I am wondering if within the department there is some way to expedite the process. Is Justice Canada a stumbling block in this process that we are discussing this morning?
My other question is the following: What efficiency experts or what have you could be brought in to get the flow going quicker? Things seem to hang up for some odd reason. I know that we have to dot all the Is and cross all the Ts when you are transferring lands, but maybe you can give us a quick response to that, please.
Ms. Buist: I can say unequivocally that the Department of Justice is not responsible in any way as a stumbling block. You heard me say earlier that I come from there, and I am only on secondment, so I have to go back there. I will be careful in what I say, but I will be honest with you. No, as we have sat together with our justice lawyers over the past year to look at the process involved internally in moving additions to reserve, they have been hand in hand with us creatively looking for ways to find efficiencies, while still maintaining our legal requirements and our due diligence that is necessary to ensure that we are, as I said, getting environmentally clean land that is well surveyed and good land for reserve for the First Nation.
No, I would not point the finger in any way at the Department of Justice. I would say that processes built up over time. When I first came in to the department a year ago, I was shown the process chart for ATRs. It was about six feet long. I kid you not. It was a six-foot-long roll of papers for what took place internally in the department that had built up over time around the policy. We have cut at least two feet off that process in the last year and we are continuing to work on that. Certain steps are necessary, and we must follow them to ensure that there are not legal liabilities to the Crown down the line, but we are being creative and effective in finding internal efficiencies. Most of the delay in ATRs happens before it gets into the department. We have a 100-day service standard once it comes into the department; for the TLE claims, a 75-day service standard. Often, before they get in the door, it has been five to ten years.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for being here.
Can you explain the differences between what is happening on the Prairies, where you have treaties — and obviously some of the additions are because the treaties were not upheld properly — and in British Columbia, where there are no treaties but where the Aboriginal population is expanding and growing and needs lands for economic development?
Is there a difference in how the different requests come in and how they are dealt with between the two situations?
Ms. Buist: I will turn to Ms. Dupont to talk about the treaties and the settlement of those claims, and then we will address the non-treaty areas.
Anik Dupont, Director General, Specific Claims, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: In British Columbia, out of the specific claims settlements, we have these in B.C. and there are ATR provisions that come out from the specific claims settlements.
To answer your question, it is not treated separately. As part of the specific claims negotiations and the settlement, we have to come to an agreement with the First Nation as to what would be the selection area where the First Nations have the potential of purchasing land with the specific claims settlements. They are treated separately outside the treaty negotiations, but, with the First Nation and with other processes, we try to coordinate, when we are looking at the land selection areas, if there is land in the settlement of specific claims.
The challenge is the availability of land for the First Nations. Where we might have ATR provisions in those specific settlements, sometimes it takes time for the First Nation to have the ability to purchase land. For the purchasing of land, it always comes on a buyer-willing seller, so it may take time before a First Nation may have the possibility of adding land to their reserve. However, from a specific claims settlement or negotiation process, it is the same process across Canada for all of them.
Ms. Buist: Some of the non-historic treaty areas do not have a claim settlements implementation act. The three Prairie provinces have claims implementation acts. They allow for pre-reserve designations, and they allow the additions to reserve to fall in the first policy category, which involves the legal obligations. Outside the historic treaties and the claims settlement regime, for example, in the non-historic treaty areas of B.C., or where it is not an historic claim settlement in British Columbia, those First Nations are looking at needing to use a different policy category. They would have to use the community additions or the new reserves or other policy categories within our federal policy. Along with the claim settlements implementation acts came dollars. There is a lot more money for those particular additions to reserve. If the First Nations are not getting the money to buy the land from a claims settlement, they have to come up with the dollars to purchase the land for new reserve through other means.
Those would be the main differences that I could point out to you between the two.
Mr. Beynon: If I could add one more point, in the Prairie provinces you have the historic treaties and many First Nations to whom promises were made in those treaties to set aside reserve lands. Working with the provinces and the First Nations, treaty land entitlement agreements were entered into in those provinces. I think that made a lot of sense, because these treaties applied to many First Nations as being members of those treaty groups with accompanying legislation to try to make that process efficient.
In other provinces, like Ontario and British Columbia, you can have additions to reserve that are related to the settlement of an old, historic obligation. Not so much driven by historic treaties — and you know very well the history in British Columbia — but there are old situations that result in specific claims. There were situations in British Columbia where land was set aside as a reserve but then cut off from reserves, or where railways took land and questions arose about whether the railway properly took the land.
In some cases in Ontario and British Columbia, for example, we end up settling a specific claim, and included in the decision is to proceed with an addition to reserve. We are gaining experience with those and processing them as best we can. They are not the same as the Prairie historic treaty claims, but they do relate to a lawful obligation.
Then there is the last category, which is there may have been no historic specific claim or treaty-based claim whatsoever, but you have a First Nation that is breaking at the seams out of an existing reserve land base because there is not enough land available for housing, and so on. Those are the ones that Ms. Buist has described as community additions, mostly driven by population pressures.
The last tiny category is where there is a golden opportunity for economic development where a parcel of land is available, and the First Nation can see that, even without an old, historic treaty issue to settle, an old specific claim lawful obligation, or community pressures in terms of the population. There may be a strategically valuable parcel of land that the First Nation turns to us and says, "If we could add that to reserve, we could achieve great things."
The bulk of our additions to reserve are from that first category, where there are huge parcels of land still owed in the Prairie provinces.
Senator Raine: Regarding the Nisga'a settlement, I understand there are some Nisga'a communities that are not happy with the way the land was divided up in that settlement. How do they redress their grievances through your process?
Mr. Beynon: That is an interesting question. I should disclose that I was Canada's lawyer on the Nisga'a treaty. I would say, for the record, that the Nisga'a treaty is very good and that there are no problems.
All kidding aside, in the settlement of that treaty, there was very careful work done by all parties, the Nisga'a Nation itself, plus Canada, plus the province, to try to resolve the long-outstanding land questions. There was community ratification and a strong vote in favour of adopting the settlement that arose in British Columbia.
We do not have any additions to reserve or expansion of reserve land issues formally in front of us. If the Nisga'a at some point, or Nisga'a members, wanted to raise issues about the land base, consistent with the rest of the treaty, I think it is fairly clear that both Canada and the province would take the view that it is not to be reserve lands. I think you will recall that in the Nisga'a treaty, all of the lands that were dealt with are either settlement lands or some parcels of land that they hold in fee simple, but none of the lands remain reserves. On the subject for discussion today, additions to reserve, I do not think we are likely to see that happen with the Nisga'a.
Ms. Buist: The Indian Act is the law that applies on reserve. Reserve creation, though, comes from the Royal Proclamation. Then there are specific claims that are settled, and that is what Ms. Dupont has been talking about. Then there are comprehensive land claims. The Nisga'a is a comprehensive land claim and, generally speaking in comprehensive land claims, there are no reserves.
Senator Raine: I understand that, but I do know that there is a case in the B.C. appeal court, and I think it would be in everyone's best interests to have that proceed without being impeded in any way. We have a small group of people, a small community, who feel they did not get a big enough reserve, land sufficiently large for their community. They are inside the Nisga'a Nation. They do not have the resources of the Nisga'a Nation. They do not have the resources of the B.C. government or the federal government. They are on their own to try to get their grievance addressed.
I keep following that case and thinking there is something wrong here, when these people have to go up against the juggernaut of all the resources of the different governments, and they are on their own. They do not have enough land for their community.
The Chair: Colleagues, I believe that Senator Raine's concerns are valid, but I think they are outside the purview of the ATR study.
At 11 o'clock I would like to go in camera to discuss future business, and I have two more senators. I would ask that we proceed as expeditiously as possible.
Senator Patterson: Aboriginal Affairs' own study of September 2010 noted there are no formal dispute resolution mechanisms in place. Municipalities are sometimes concerned that First Nations and the department can proceed with reserve creation despite their objections, and First Nations express concern that municipalities and third parties can hold up the addition to reserve periods for long intervals of time by not negotiating in good faith.
We come upon this with the department in other areas, such as comprehensive claims. Is there any reason why there cannot be a formal dispute resolution mechanism established, and are you working on that?
Mr. Beynon: I think it might be useful for the senators to have the benefit of hearing either from associations of municipalities or First Nations directly on that question.
I suppose I would offer this answer: We often look to dispute resolution mechanisms where there is an outside expert who can assist the parties in driving to an answer that they cannot find themselves: courts and judges on the law, arbitrators on labour issues, with their expertise, and so on.
However, in the case of municipalities and First Nations, again subject to what you may hear from them, I would just offer the thought that it is they who have the most at stake in terms of these land boundaries, municipal service agreements and an ongoing relationship. To turn to an outside party for dispute resolution, I am not sure they would find that to be an acceptable mechanism, because too often one would lose completely against the other.
The negotiations are difficult, but there is a value in municipalities and First Nations, as neighbours, finding solutions themselves, and mutually acceptable pathways forward.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Chair, it does not have to be binding.
I mean, it is your own department's study that said there is a hole here; there is a barrier here. It is a well-known technique where parties choose someone in whom they have confidence. I would suggest that your department, having done the study, could take the lead in promoting this. You have consultation mechanisms in place with the AFN and the First Nations land managers. I would think that would be something that could speed the process up and should be pursued. I will leave it at that.
I have a quick question. The Auditor General said Aboriginal Affairs has huge differences in their capability in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Land selection files were well organized and comprehensive in Saskatchewan but not in Manitoba. I know that was in 2009. Has that been fixed?
Ms. Buist: The short answer is yes.
Senator Ataullahjan: I have a quick question for Natural Resources Canada. Out of the 1,275 ATR projects opened between 2005 and 2012, how many are still in progress? I am looking and it says "many," but it does not give us a figure. How many are still in progress?
Mr. Sullivan: I do not have the number of those still in progress, but we can certainly provide that to you.
Ms. Buist: We have an additional response, if possible, to Senator Patterson.
The Chair: Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Dupont: In response, Senator Patterson, if I can address the whole issue of consultation. As part of the specific claims settlement negotiations, when we are at the table with the First Nations we actually do a lot of consultative work on the ground with the municipalities and local officials. We give informational briefings and we work with the First Nations to meet with representatives in the area where there will be land selection.
We participate, and we actively encourage the First Nations, as well as my colleague Mr. Beynon mentioned, to get the ball rolling or start ahead to identify with the municipalities the people on the ground that we are currently in discussions of a specific claims settlement. There will be an ATR. This is what it means for you, for the people in the surrounding areas and for landholders. A lot of effort is made communications, from our perspective, from the Crown's perspective, with the province as well as on behalf of the First Nation. A lot of effort is made at the front end so that it is not a surprise when we get to a settlement and there is an ATR provision in the agreement.
The Chair: Ms. Buist, could you elaborate a little on your "yes" response?
Ms. Buist: We work closely, as I indicated, with the regions. I know that, after the 2009 comments, we have been working very closely with Manitoba region in helping them move through many of the acres that were committed through the claims in Manitoba. We have worked with them on the national tracking system. We have worked with them on funding issues. They have, in the region, sat down with the First Nations in Manitoba and just this year renewed a commitment to setting targets for the land to meet their commitments to add land to reserves. Those are a number of the changes that have happened.
Mr. Sullivan: I have just one clarification on the last question that was requested. On page 7 of the briefing document, we do have the numbers for Manitoba, and 76 per cent of the projects have been completed for Manitoba. We will get the numbers for the rest of the country and provide them to the clerk.
The Chair: I think you know the urgency that exists. On the weekend, I had a call that on one of our First Nations reserves, there was a $200-million project going in British Columbia, in Osoyoos. That is just an indication of what is happening out there in First Nations country. You people hold the key to economic development, to a vast degree, and that is why we are going through this process. Hopefully we can get some efficiencies in the system that would expedite the process. I know I am talking to the converted, but the fact is that we all need reminding from time to time to jack things up and get it going. I can see, having been on this committee for 15 years, the results that are taking place as a result of the specific claims legislation and other things that are happening, and it is leading to economic development and opportunities for our First Nations people.
Thank you again, all of you, for appearing here this morning. On behalf of the senators, I want to thank you for being so open and candid in your responses. With that, I will suspend for three or four minutes until we clear the room to go in camera for consideration of future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)