THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 22, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people and express gratitude for their role as the past, present and future caretakers of this land.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island, and I am Chair of the Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to ask everyone in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I would now like to ask committee members in attendance to introduce themselves by stating their name and province or territory.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Patti LaBoucane-Benson, Treaty 6 territory, Alberta.
Senator Hartling: Nancy Hartling, New Brunswick.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec. Welcome.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today, we are here to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A and B of Division 3 of Part 4 of Bill C-32, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 3, 2022 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022. These sections relate to the enactment of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management Act — FAFNLMA — and the repeal of the First Nations Land Management Act.
I would like to introduce our first witnesses. With us today, we have, from the Lands Advisory Board, Chief Robert Louie and Councillor Bill McCue, and Andrew Beynon, Director of Land Governance at the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre.
I have been advised that Chief Louie and Mr. McCue will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes and Mr. Beynon will participate in the question and answer session that will follow.
Robert Louie, Chief, Lands Advisory Board: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with some supportive comments for the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management act.
I am the Chief of the Westbank First Nation in British Columbia. I have also had the pleasure of serving as the Chair of the First Nations Lands Advisory Board since its inception more than 30 years ago. The Lands Advisory Board initiated the groundbreaking Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management and provides political advocacy to our 194 First Nation signatories.
Our main job is to establish community-developed, modern and more appropriate land codes specifically related to the self‑governance of lands and resources and to dispense with the 44 sections — which is about 25% — of the Indian Act that other First Nations are governed under. To date, 104 First Nations have re-established their inherent authority and another 44 are currently in the developmental phase.
For both First Nations and Canada, this has been an important and historically significant movement. The Indian Act carries a terrible colonial legacy and has been in force for more than 150 years. Removing and replacing a large portion of the Indian Act means First Nations can make their own decisions concerning their own lands, with their own members and through their own processes. Decisions can be made in days to weeks as opposed to months to years under the Indian Act. Land Code First Nations have recognized governmental lawmaking authority along with recognized management authority over their lands and resources.
The Framework Agreement is a government-to-government agreement between First Nations and Canada and was signed in 1996 between 13 First Nations and Canada at the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Ontario. My colleague to the right, Bill McCue, was the chief at that time.
Three years later, Canada ratified this agreement through the First Nations Land Management Act, otherwise known as the FNLMA. However, there was a major problem with this ratification in 1999.
The text of the 1999 First Nations Land Management Act sought to reproduce the commitments contained in the Framework Agreement, and in certain areas, the use of divergent language was used. Unfortunately, other commitments contained in the Framework Agreement were left out entirely. This created a troubling and problematic situation whereby a secondary and differing text of the original Framework Agreement commitments, which sought to guide its implementation, was instituted. As you might imagine, this has caused confusion, delay and conflict over which text was paramount.
Another problem with the different duplication of text in the First Nations Land Management Act was that it often gave the impression to First Nations, as well as others, that the implementation of the First Nations’ inherent right to self‑government over lands was being legislated, directed and controlled by Canada, rather than being recognized and implemented by First Nations. This impression is inherently wrong.
The signatories to the Framework Agreement, as well as the Lands Advisory Board, see this as a First Nation-driven process and not a government program, which many within government often wrongly refer to this as. This needs to be corrected.
Since 2020, the Lands Advisory Board has worked diligently and extensively with both First Nations signatories in Canada to streamline the new Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management act down to five pages rather than the unwieldy 48 pages of the 1999 First Nations Land Management Act.
We have had numerous sessions with signatory First Nations and have received unanimous support at those meetings to proceed with this important work. We also have the support of the Assembly of First Nations. A letter of the Assembly of First Nations’ support was given to the clerk for your records and preview.
We firmly believe this new legislation will ratify the Framework Agreement the way it was originally intended and direct readers back to a single guiding text for the more important details of implementation.
I will be pleased to answer questions and provide more examples, if asked, as to the existing legislation’s misalignment with the Framework Agreement. I will now defer to my long‑time colleague and friend, Bill McCue, from Chippewas of Georgina Island. Thank you, lim limpt.
Bill McCue, Councillor, Lands Advisory Board: Thank you and good morning, esteemed senators. I too would like to acknowledge being on the traditional territory of the Algonquins.
My name is Bill McCue. I’m currently a councillor at my First Nation, the Chippewas of Georgina Island in Ontario.
In 1996, I was the chief of my community when the Framework Agreement was signed. In 1993, we had passed our land code before the Framework Agreement was signed. In doing that, our First Nation wanted to get away from the sections of the Indian Act that controlled our jurisdiction.
We started with a small group of like-minded First Nations who were tired of the red tape, control and debilitating effects of the Indian Act. We needed to create a path that would, on one hand, provide for controlled, careful and meaningful restoration of our land’s authority and, on the other hand, ensure that our rights, interests and protections were sufficiently preserved.
The Framework Agreement gave us this opportunity. Since my community put our land code into place, we’ve had some challenges, but we’ve had significant successes. We truly started back then to form our own economic reconciliations. Our community has thrived under the act, but like anything in law, they have to progress and they have to move forward and change with the times. Undoing that after more than a century and a half of the Indian Act is no easy task, but we would never consider going back to the way things were before. I think my elders would give me a tongue-lashing if we said we were going back to the Indian Act.
Now that we have jurisdiction and control of our affairs, we believe this is essential. The proposed Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management act represents an opportunity to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the exercise of First Nations authority. It also paves the way for greatly streamlined future amendments to the Framework Agreement and a considerable reduction in expenses and time for both government and First Nations. The lack of a duplicate text will mean that future agreed changes to the Framework Agreement will not require a companion set of changes to its ratifying legislation.
Since 1988, we have made six separate amendments to the Framework Agreement. Each time, we also had to engage with Canada formally to match our companion legislated changes at the same time.
Aside from the considerable expense of negotiations with Indigenous Services Canada — ISC — and CIRNAC — Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada — officials and the Department of Justice’s and legal services and drafting, we also had to involve central agency as well as lobby MPs, senators, ministers and prime ministers, not to mention getting House and Senate time.
Relatively minor changes still require this considerable effort. The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management act will remove this duplication and unnecessary expense. The FAFNLMA is very much a win-win for both First Nations, government and Canadians as a whole.
Thank you very much for your time. Lim limpt.
The Chair: Thank you both, Chief Louie and Councillor McCue. Before we go to questions, I remind everyone in the room to refrain from leaning too closely into the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so.
In your opinion, why does it take an extended amount of time for decisions to be made about First Nations land under the Indian Act?
Mr. Louie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d be pleased to answer that. Under ISC and CIRNAC, a lot of bureaucratic red tape takes place. There are so many hoops to jump through. The decision making rests with the minister, with ISC and with CIRNAC. That is cumbersome. It takes a long time. To get a lease through that process, for example, you’ve got an economic development matter, you need the instrument of the lease to move ahead with, but you can’t do it expeditiously. It takes a long time, sometimes years and sometimes the business opportunity fails and it fades away. You just don’t have the time.
Under a land code with First Nation jurisdiction, as provided by the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, these matters can be dealt with expeditiously, in a matter of weeks or days. You don’t miss time and it’s a community-led decision. It’s a decision of the community. It’s what governance is about. It’s what economic development advancement is about — a totally different situation. There is night and day between the two processes.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Louie. Being a former chief, I couldn’t agree more.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you. I have two questions, and the first is to Chief Louie. I see in the executive summary that was published on the LAB that a “Framework Agreement is not a treaty and does not affect existing treaty . . . .” I know in Alberta this is a particularly thorny issue because the treaty chiefs of Alberta do not want to do anything that could possibly legally infringe upon their treaty rights or the understanding of a treaty.
Could you help us understand how this law would not affect a treaty agreement?
Mr. Louie: Thank you very much. When we worked and sat down with First Nations throughout Canada in the early inception, when the Framework Agreement was being drafted, we had lots of discussions with First Nations across Canada.
As you’re aware, the majority of First Nations in Canada are treaty-based. It was very clear that there was no First Nation that was going to participate if they felt their treaty would be in jeopardy. One of the founding principles within the Framework Agreement principles was that it was not to impact treaties. This was something that was demanded and it would not have passed through legislation had this been the case.
We’ve always maintained that. We support the treaties and agreements that governments have instituted with First Nations, and this is very fundamental.
In Alberta, we recently received the First Nation who passed a land code, the Woodland Cree First Nation. We’re optimistic Alberta will open up to other First Nations with treaties in Alberta. We’re actively working with the development of those communities in their development of land codes right now.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Me too. My second question is for both Mr. McCue and Chief Louie. Can you help the committee understand, prior to the Framework Agreement, what the powers of the government were? After the Framework Agreement, particularly in this iteration, what are the powers that First Nations have now? Can you give us an example of the economic reconciliation you’re talking about?
Mr. McCue: Thank you for that question. I’ll give an explanation from our community. My community is 50 miles north of Toronto, and we have a lot of cottage leases that occupy our territories. The leases were with the Crown at that time, with Her Majesty the Queen.
The cancellation of those leases and creation of new leases had to be approved by Canada. As Chief Louie previously stated, sometimes it would take two years, other times it would take even longer and people would lose interest. We’d lose our opportunity for a chance to generate an economy for our people and our communities. As well, there was the aspect of the collection of leases and rent revenues. The department at the time would collect on our behalf because the lease was with them and not with us.
When our First Nation first passed our land code, they did an audit and there were close to $240,000 of uncollected revenues that were not paid to us on our behalf, as it was the responsibility of Canada at the time to manage our affairs. That was a significant amount of funding.
Now, we have the authority to collect rent. We have the ability to make leases. One of the things that we are looking forward to in the future is creating a lands registry system for First Nations.
In the area of environmental aspects, it was Canada’s responsibility to enforce the environmental laws. Some of these cottages had been there for a number of years, and the septic systems they had were 45-gallon oil drum tanks that would seep into our water. We tried to cancel their leases, but the leases weren’t with the First Nations, they were with Canada. There wasn’t a significant amount of staff to do all 133 First Nations in Canada. They were taxed as well.
But we have the authority now. We have our own environmental department. We can make our cottages abide by the environmental laws. Our laws are similar to Canada’s or Ontario’s environmental laws. Actually, they go beyond those laws because it’s our responsibility to protect the land and the water.
As I said, our community was the first to pass a land code in Canada. We didn’t know where we were going, but we knew where we were under the Indian Act, and we wanted to go someplace better.
Mr. Louie: Mr. Chair, may I add a little bit that might help the honourable senators with the question? It’s a very good question, because if you look at the powers under the Indian Act as it affects First Nations and you look at the powers of a land code under the Framework Agreement, it is night and day.
Under the Indian Act, a First Nation can’t pass bylaws, which is a subsidiary instrument subject to another act, in this case the Indian Act. The First Nation is not the decision maker. It has no lawmaking power. It’s a subservient body.
Under the land code, it’s a totally different situation. First Nations have the power to make laws. It’s self-governance. It’s lawmaking jurisdiction authority. The Indian Act does not apply to our land management over lands and resources. It’s self‑government being instituted. That’s a considerable difference when you look at the difference between the Indian Act and the First Nations with land codes.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you very much. My question is for both of you, Chief Louie, and former chief and Councillor McCue. It’s with regard to the consultative process that led to this Framework Agreement.
If I’m not mistaken, you seem to be pretty happy with the way you were consulted. My question is: Should it become the new model for consultation between government and First Nations, or could this process be improved in any way?
Mr. Louie: Senator Saint-Germain, I’m pleased you asked that question because I think a new model is very important. What this means here is that when we go back in time, we had a very good consultative process originally. We worked on the Framework Agreement with First Nations and Canada together. We arrived at appropriate principles in the terms. All was good.
All was good until such times as the Framework Agreement then had to be implemented by ratification of Canada into legislation. We negotiated and settled the Framework Agreement in 1996. Legislation was eventually passed in June 1999.
Unfortunately, when that legislation was passed, it didn’t duplicate all of the principles and reflect the intent of the Framework Agreement. While the consultative process was good, it got mired in actually getting the legislation developed.
So today, with the proposed Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management act that we have before us, it will remedy that situation. It will put the focus back on the Framework Agreement: the principles, the agreement and the intent of the Government of Canada and First Nations. I think it will mend the uncertainty.
It could avoid potential lawsuits that could derive through misinterpretation. It can, as my colleague has mentioned, save Canada and First Nations money without having to do amendments, as Councillor Bill McCue has indicated. We’ve gone through six amendments. Each time we go through an amendment, it’s a lengthy process. Canada has to do its process, and First Nations have to do their processes. We’ve had some delays of over a year or two years in getting amendments in place.
With this process under the new Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management act, we will eliminate that duplicate process, save Canada money, save First Nations money and get down to business much more quickly.
Andrew Beynon, Director of Land Governance, First Nations Land Management Resource Centre: If I can add briefly to that answer, it is an interesting issue regarding consultation.
The key point of the Framework Agreement is that it’s not Canada doing something and consulting First Nations about what they’re writing. The Framework Agreement is really led by First Nations. It addresses what First Nations want to do in terms of lands governance, environmental governance and natural resource governance. You don’t encounter so much the problems with consultation that, as senators, you probably hear about on a number of fronts because this is First Nation-driven.
In terms of improvements over time, this new legislation changes the whole process and will eliminate some of the difficulties with Canada drafting legislation or amendments to legislation.
My one comment on that would be that we have publicly raised a request or a suggestion to government that in the future — particularly when it comes to legislation enacted by Parliament that is dealing directly with First Nations self‑government — there should be more of a process where there’s a direct engagement with the legislative drafters. If the legislation is going to touch on these rights or powers or the authority, then First Nations have such a stake in the accurate drafting that it would be very helpful to break open that door and work directly with drafters.
Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Beynon, could you please describe the types of supports First Nations receive from the Land Management Resource Centre?
Mr. Beynon: I have the honour of working directly with the resource centre as an employee, and we were an organization that was set up as a not-for-profit corporation whose sole purpose really is to work with First Nations who are either interested in exploring this option or actively examining a potential land code for a vote by their members, as well as First Nations across the country who have become operational and have land codes.
So we have a number of staff who work directly with First Nations on the priorities that they have to try to make the implementation of the Framework Agreement as effective as possible across the country.
Our services range from work on the text of land codes for decision by the members. We can assist on the drafting of laws and working with a First Nation’s legal counsel on the laws that they enact. We have some staff who specialize in working on land-use planning. We have an ability in respect of GIS — geographic information systems — and mapping, a very active network of First Nations with land codes who are trying to work together on that. We have specialists on environmental issues who work on environmental management plans, and legacy issues to deal with old environmental issues. We have a special division that’s responsible for training, and we put on a regular series of training events for existing land managers as well as new land managers all across the country.
The last piece that I would mention is we have an intergovernmental relations function. For example, regarding the work on the drafting of this legislation, to the extent that we were working with some very talented federal officials on this, we at the resource centre led that on behalf of the First Nations.
Then, where our work would lead to a potential amendment to legislation or to the Framework Agreement or major innovations, like changes to Canada’s Additions to Reserve policy, or what we’re proposing as a new land registry and so on. Then it returns to the political level where the leadership of the Lands Advisory Board, usually through special meetings or annual general meetings, ensure the leadership of First Nations across the country support the initiatives as well.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here. I’m glad you’re here. It’s a good reason to come to Ottawa.
You talked about the drafting of legislation. Would it be fair to say that most of the drafting of legislation that has been done would come from the paradigm — even with modern agreements — that there’s a delegation of power going forward and that it’s from the point of view of monitoring and administering that agreement, but the power still resides with Canada? This is one rare occasion where potentially it’s being acknowledged that they don’t have the power anymore, that it’s not being delegated, it has been recognized to be surrendered or they never had it and that it’s no longer their business. Is this where things are going, necessarily?
Would you think that with these kinds of arrangements would come a loss of some work and jobs in Ottawa? There are 5,000 or so people here in Ottawa that administer the relationship with Indigenous people. I, for one, think it would be really interesting to see some announcements that say, “Oh, and by the way, a hundred jobs will disappear in Ottawa as a result of this agreement,” or that agreement or whatever.
I’m just wondering if we will ever get to an era without recognizing that there are 5,000-plus people here in Ottawa who have to get up every morning to find something to do. They will continue to find something to do — you talked about two-year lease renewals and so on. That’s what all this is about.
How can we help push that era along, here? I guess that is my first question, and I’m giving you a chance to riff.
Second, can you tell me what this means, if anything, for home ownership in communities?
Mr. Beynon: It’s a very interesting question that you ask, and we need about three hours to go through it.
I’ll just say very quickly that I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Framework Agreement is an exercise of self‑government by First Nations, and the importance of the agreement with Canada is not for Canada to delegate any of these powers. It’s really to respect the exercise of inherent rights and to terminate the old colonial Indian Act provisions.
Right from the outset, even from the 1990s, I know that the leadership has vigorously asserted that this is not a delegation by Canada or Canada dictating how Framework Agreement First Nations will approach things. As Chief Robert Louie has said before, under the Framework Agreement, it’s First Nations individually who will decide whether to enact laws, which laws to enact, what land use plans and which areas of land they want to conserve or develop and how the leases are to be drafted. It really is an exercise of self-government, even from its outset in the 1990s.
The move to this new legislation just carries that further because, unfortunately, some people in the legal community, real estate agents and even some members of First Nations have tended in the past to say, “Oh, you are under the FNLMA” — the First Nations Land Management Act — and, “What does the First Nations Land Management Act say you can do?” We are constantly saying, “No, look to the Framework Agreement,” which is what First Nations have approved through votes of their membership, and it’s the Framework Agreement which sets out the First Nations’ views on important issues like inherent rights, treaty rights, lawmaking powers and so on.
This is very much good news and a step in the right direction.
On the issue of Ottawa and civil servants, this really does change things. There has been over the past 25 years a very significant move by First Nations under Framework Agreement authority to exercise self-government and not to depend on decision making in Ottawa or even in regional offices.
Having said that, there still remains an important relationship with Canada. At the end of the day, there is a government-to-government relationship. First Nations under the authority of the Framework Agreement are not isolated. There is a lot of interaction with other governments, so I think there will remain a function for some of the bureaucrats in Ottawa or in regions to work in partnership with First Nations to support economic development, to help unlock future economic opportunities and to work with departments like Environment and Climate Change Canada or Fisheries and Oceans Canada, where matters still have to involve the federal government.
It is a dramatic shift away from controlling decision making and barriers in Ottawa to partnership and working to support First Nations on what they do.
Mr. Louie: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I could add to that, Senator Tannas, thank you very much for your question.
I wanted to address two points that you raised, if I may, first with regard to the jobs and the creation of jobs and potential loss of jobs. From a First Nation’s perspective, in those communities that have lawmaking authority and that can move ahead with economic development, we have had tremendous success over the last 20-plus years, since 1999 when the legislation was initially passed. We have created in communities multiple billions of dollars — and in some communities many hundreds of millions of dollars — of economic activity. That translates to jobs, not only in the First Nation, but jobs within the local community, within the province and within the region.
In some cases, we have had some of the leadership indicate — Whitecap Dakota is an example in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan — that their unemployment dropped from more than 90% to under 5% — tremendous advantages and tremendous jobs. Hundreds of jobs and, literally, tens of thousands of jobs have been created. That is a tremendous trade-off and a tremendous benefit to First Nations, to local communities, to provinces and to Canada as a whole.
Second, with regard to the home ownership, this is a very important matter because First Nations need homes and need the opportunity to build housing and so forth. Under the Indian Act, there are limitations. How do you put up reserve lands as security? It becomes very difficult.
What happens under CMHC — Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation — is that the First Nation has to collectively put up its resources and guarantee the loan. As a consequence, we had many First Nations who have gone into third-party management because of that. There are too many loans, too many guarantees, and 30% of Canada, with First Nations, at one time, was under third-party management because of housing.
Today, with land codes in place, we have dealt with CMHC, and we have lobbied very hard over the last 20-plus years with CMHC to create a mechanism where homes can be built for which the First Nation collectively didn’t have to put up the full guarantees to build homes. Today, we have various things where communities have both band land and individual allotments, for CP — Certificate of Possession — lands. We have what is called an A to A lease, and it is an arrangement we worked out with CMHC and the banks throughout Canada; we literally have all the major banks and credit unions backing it. We have loans that are financed by CMHC. That has opened up tremendous doors. It’s allowed First Nations to build homes and settle many issues without having all of these guarantees and threats that they could go into third-party management. These are tremendous advantages.
That, under the Indian Act, is not possible.
Mr. McCue: I agree with what Chief Robert Louie was saying in relation to the creation of jobs, and we have had some of our folks that have been working in Ottawa come home to work for our First Nation and assist in areas of lands. Now that we have our land code, we have that ability to ensure that there are opportunities and that experience, because for far too long our community would watch our young folks leave.
Now they are coming back. With the ability to have a land code and the innovations that are available for housing, there is that mechanism so that they can come home. We were losing our people. Now, our population is coming back. We have folks that are going to universities and coming home to work for us, and that’s a positive thing that is all a result of us having that jurisdiction and authority. I do appreciate that question.
Senator Tannas: Thank you, Councillor McCue. As a westerner, I can’t yield without acknowledging the tremendous success of Westbank First Nation. As a business person, I have watched over the last three decades your community rise and thrive. It’s a remarkable success story, and I know you were at the centre of it, sir. Much appreciated.
Mr. Louie: Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Hartling: Thank you for being here. This has been very informative. I appreciate that the move towards self‑governance, for you and for all of us, makes a better Canada.
I have a couple of questions. As you move towards these changes, of course, there is always that power of some people that don’t want to let go of it, but there is also the other side. How do you see it moving towards reconciliation? Also, what would be some more challenges that you will face? I know you mentioned, councillor, the cottage owners, and that probably rubs them the wrong way. But are there other challenges you would face? Also, what are some of the positives — you have already mentioned some — around reconciliation?
Mr. McCue: Thank you for that question. You’re correct in saying that there were challenges. Not everyone was totally on side with it — the third parties, the cottagers. But the community, in our case, as I said, we knew where we were under the Indian Act. When we had our vote, 96% of our community voted in favour of us moving forward with our land code. That showed to me, as the chief at the time, that they weren’t happy with the way we were.
We have since gone forward and developed our own laws. One of the positive things was the opportunity that we had over the past three years when everyone was locked down; we had the ability through our land code to enforce that jurisdiction even more properly to make our community feel safe. We didn’t have any cases of the COVID virus hit our community for the first two years when it began. Then when we loosened our laws and started allowing opening, we had a big kickback from folks saying, well, we have to open up. When we opened up, it spread through our community. We had one case from someone visiting and then it hit our community and just ran rampant through our community.
But in terms of reconciliation, our people have a sense of pride now. We still work with the government on all kinds of issues. We have a good relationship with the province as well, as I said. We had the local town where we have our businesses. We own property on the mainland as well as our island, and we have a business centre set up there. We’re the third-largest employer in the area. It’s not just our folks. It’s other folks from the neighbouring town that work in our area, so the dollars have come in the form of economic reconciliation. Before we were in a land code, we were battling with third-party management in the early 1990s when we couldn’t access our lease dollars because, as I previously mentioned, they weren’t being collected on our behalf. We had to ask Canada if we could have our own lease revenues. It would all go through a channel so it got to us.
Now, through our treaty settlements and through our business developments, our First Nation is in the capacity of over $140 million in investments and revenue generated through our First Nation.
As I said, that’s one part of economic reconciliation. But the reconciliation with our people, their relationship with the land, they feel that, “Okay, we have a say in what we can do with our land,” and that responsibility that they know what is being done is best and follows our traditional values.
Senator Hartling: That’s very empowering, thank you.
Mr. Louie: Senator Hartling, thank you very much for your great question. I would like to provide a two-part response to your question.
First, with regard to reconciliation, reconciliation is paramount. It’s fundamentally important. Regarding the UNDRIP aspect and Canada’s recognition of UNDRIP — the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — I think the Framework Agreement now with its new proposed legislation, should it be enacted, will accelerate reconciliation for our First Nations because it will put the focus on the Framework Agreement — the government-to-government agreement and the principles contained therein — and will recognize the primary document as the Framework Agreement. That is very important for reconciliation. I think it’s very important because it’s one of the reasons why, when we have discussed that at our AGMs with the Lands Advisory Board, that’s led to unanimous support from our First Nations. Our communities are waiting and hoping that this legislation will be passed and that it will be a new recognition of reconciliation in line with UNDRIP. This is very important to us.
Second, with regard to challenges, we do have challenges. They haven’t gone away. We have a lot of work to do in the future. A couple of issues that we’re working on right now are enforcement — having First Nation laws enforced.
We have come to find out over the last 20-plus years that Canada and the RCMP are not readily backing and enforcing the First Nation laws that First Nations have passed. It’s an issue that is bubbling. It’s something that we didn’t quite expect at the outset, but we’re working now with Canada and with provinces and with Attorneys General both at the Canadian and provincial levels to deal with this issue. We have a lot of work to do to get enforcement fully recognized so that First Nation laws can be accepted, enforced and, in certain cases, prosecuted. That’s a very big area.
The second issue that we’re working on — it’s a very significant one and we have advanced ourselves a long way — is creating a new First Nations-led land registry. Right now, land registry is under the Indian Act. We have regulations in place that we have advocated in advance, which has certainly been helpful and moved things ahead, but there are still problematic areas with regard to the Indian Act regulatory system and with those regulations. What we’re working on right now is developing our own First Nations land registry. We have partnered with British Columbia and are dealing with the drafters of the work that has been done with regard to land registry from British Columbia and fine-tuned it to all of the First Nations throughout Canada.
It’s proposed that it will be a First Nations-led registry, and it will be modernized to the extent that it will give us the means to move ahead with the modern needs of recognition of what a land registry should contain so that you can go to this registry system and have immediate access, have guarantees and have recognition that you’re going to have immediate responses to proper land registry.
It’s a big area. We have done a lot of work and we have a lot more work to do. These are some of the challenges that we’re currently facing. I very much appreciate this opportunity to advise you as to some of the issues that still need to be worked on.
The Chair: Thank you. You touched on this, Chief Louie, but I’m going to ask you to expand on it a bit more.
Section 10 of the bill sets out that the minister can recommend regulations be made regarding the First Nations land registry. From your perspective, how should these regulations be made, and how are First Nations involved?
Mr. Beynon: Maybe I can answer that. This proposed new legislation basically carries over the existing land registry provisions from the current First Nations Land Management Act. Under the Framework Agreement, as it was written 25 years ago, there was agreement that Canada would administer the land registry.
At the time of the inception of the Framework Agreement, there wasn’t a decision to have a First Nations-led land registry. When you read the current Framework Agreement and when you read the current First Nations Land Management Act, it contemplates Canada administering the land registry.
As Chief Robert Louie said, there is a bit of a step beyond the Indian Act system, which is just one sentence in the Indian Act, because there are regulations that support the registry for land code First Nations under which priority amongst registered instruments is recognized. There is a bit of a moving of the markers.
But now, what we’re proposing in the future is a First Nations‑led land registry administered by a separate organization more effective at operating with the same kind of capacities, reliability and speed as provincially administered land registries. That may take slight amendments to this legislation in the future and a new set of regulations that would be down the road.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: When you look at social media right now, today, a lot of young Indigenous people are talking about Land Back. It’s the thing that people are talking about, but when I listen to the discourse online, it doesn’t really point me in any real direction. What does Land Back mean? It seems to me that since 1996, you’ve been working on Land Back, and that this is Land Back.
This is a question for Mr. Beynon. It might be outside of the purview of the resource centre, but do you do any communications or public awareness about what you’re doing? You have been working on this for over 25 years. It’s growing and expanding and the understanding of Land Back is land code. It’s reasonable. It’s within the purview of the laws of Canada that it can be accomplished. Are there any public communications going on?
Mr. Beynon: We certainly do have communication strategies and materials that we publish on our website. We attend a lot of conferences. We even organize some conferences nationally to speak about the success of what has been done.
I do think we’re a bit of a quiet success story. It’s really the individual First Nations who are taking the lands issues as far as their particular communities may want, and many individual communities then communicate that success.
I do think you’re hitting a very interesting issue in terms of the Land Back agenda and the rising conversation in Canada of the importance of lands issues with First Nations. What I would offer there is I think it’s fair to say that the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management has been a massive success story over the past quarter century. One of the things that we’re looking to in the future is to hopefully significantly change or entirely replace the federal additions to reserve policy because that is not a very effective tool for Land Back — not at all.
We want to explore a First Nations-led approach rather than Ottawa having the lead role in deciding whether lands should be added or not. That could perhaps move the markers significantly on Land Back and the land question in Canada.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Just to follow up, many people on this committee worked on Bill C-92 in 2019, which was the child welfare act. The idea there was to put a centre of excellence, I think they called it, together to help nations who wanted to write their own child welfare law and have some access to resources. It seems to me you’ve been doing this. Maybe this was the model and it was unbeknownst to me.
In terms of the resource centre, the ability to help people write their own code is invaluable. I wonder if there are lessons that we could learn in child welfare from land.
Mr. Beynon: Here is a quick response to an important question, and it relates a bit to what Senator Tannas was saying about the future of Ottawa and the future of First Nations and the whole reconciliation agenda.
Individual First Nations have the rights, and it’s up to them what they want to do. The Framework Agreement makes things entirely optional, which is fundamentally important. We have consciously built a resource centre to try to serve as a resource and to assist First Nations in the transition and in the greater building of that self-government over time.
I think there are echoes in a number of places that could be helpful on child welfare. For example, fiscal institutions such as the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Finance Authority and the First Nations Financial Management Board are other examples where the self-government of First Nations and the decision making in respect of their finances is supported by an institutional framework.
What Chief Robert Louie was talking about, where we would build a land registry system, that would have an independent registrar and the capacity to support First Nations. If we do what we’re hoping for on Additions to Reserve, there would again be a First Nations organization or institution that assists individual First Nations.
I think that whether it be child welfare, other family issues or enforcement of laws — all of this range of issues — you’re seeing over time a revolution where First Nations are exercising self-government, but they are very often working with specialized training institutions or support organizations as well.
The Chair: Thank you for that. The floor is still open. Do any senators have further questions?
Mr. Beynon: Mr. Chair, if I can just add one small point, the senator at the outset raised an important point from Prairie First Nations who place so much importance on treaty rights. I just wanted to offer that the Framework Agreement itself, in its text, specifically says that it does not affect treaty rights, and this new legislation also has an express clause to say that it is not a treaty.
The Chair: Thank you. If there are no further questions, the time for this panel is complete. I want to thank Chief Louie, Councillor McCue and Andrew Beynon for joining us today. You have certainly given us a lot of food for thought. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)