Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 46 - Evidence - November 20, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 20, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:01 a.m. to consider the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 11, 12 and 19 of Part 4 of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.
Senator Lillian Eva Dyck (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, bonjour, tansi. 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, either here in the room or listening via the web. I would like to acknowledge for the sake of reconciliation that we are meeting on the traditional unceded land of the Algonquin peoples.
My name is Lillian Dyck. I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee and I’m from Saskatchewan.
Today we start our meetings on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 11, 12 and 19 of part 4 of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.
I will now invite my fellow senators to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Patterson: Dennis Patterson, Nunavut.
Senator Doyle: Norman Doyle, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McCallum: Mary Jane McCallum, Manitoba.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
I will now introduce our witnesses who are here with us this morning. From the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, we have before us Christopher Duschenes, Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Environmental Management; Susan Waters, Director General, Lands and Environmental Management; and Eric Grant, Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development.
I would like to thank you for appearing before us this morning. The floor is now yours.
Christopher Duschenes, Director General, Economic Policy Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada: Thank you very much. Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here. Thank you, Senator Dyck. I also would like to acknowledge that we are gathering here today on unceded Algonquin territory.
Good morning. My name is Christopher Duschenes and, as mentioned, I am the Director General of Economic Policy Development at Indigenous Services in Lands and Economic Development. I am here Susan Waters, who will speak to you about the additions to reserve legislation; and Eric Grant, Director of Community Lands and Development, who will speak to you about the First Nation Land Management Act. I will provide a brief overview of the First Nations Fiscal Management Act.
The First Nations Fiscal Management Act legislation was conceived, developed and promoted by First Nation leaders. The proposals to amend the act are in direct response to the direction and guidance provided by these leaders in response to what they have been hearing from community members. This is a critical point.
These proposals are largely administrative in nature. They represent small changes to existing legislation to improve processes and clarify language. The legislation is optional, meaning that First Nations communities will decide themselves whether they want to take advantage of the proposed improvements.
I’ll provide an overview of some of these changes.
First, the act came into force in 2006 and has established a strong framework for First Nations who have opted into the regime to implement taxation, fiscal management and to access long-term financing to meet their economic development and infrastructure needs.
There are three First Nation institutions that operate under the act and we refer to these as the fiscal institutions. These institutions are the First Nations Financial Management Board, the First Nations Finance Authority, and the First Nations Tax Commission.
More than one third of First Nations across the country have chosen to exercise their fiscal powers through this regime to date, meaning since 2006.
I’d like to give a few concrete examples of what the current amendments will achieve. I mention again that they are largely administrative in nature.
There are bijural concerns within the current act, which means there are inconsistencies between the civil law and common law concepts that speak to the rights and interests on reserve lands. These must be addressed to ensure national consistency and national consistency of application.
There is a need for regulations for taxation on lands that are shared with more than one First Nation. We refer to these shared lands as joint reserves. First Nations under the regime want to be able to tax on these lands and these amendments will help them do so.
To continue to evolve the regime, there is also a need to develop regulations to enable aggregate Indigenous organizations delivering public services to be able to access the regime and meet their infrastructure needs. For example, the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia, that delivers health services to all First Nations in the province, has asked to access the regime for this purpose, for the purpose of borrowing.
Finally, these amendments enable First Nations under the regime to access their Indian moneys upon a successful vote by their communities. These are monies held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of First Nations.
In summary, as I’ve mentioned, these amendments are largely administrative. They clarify language, addressing operational issues for the fiscal institutions and their members, and expanding access to those who have asked for access to the regime.
Last, as mentioned earlier, these are amendments put forward by First Nation leadership, leaders of the institutions who have spent the last many years going across the country consulting with their members who have asked for these changes.
I will now turn it over to Susan Waters for an overview of the additions to the reserve legislation.
[Translation]
Susan Waters, Director General, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada: Good morning. My name is Susan Waters, and I’m the Director General of Lands and Environment at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. I’m pleased to provide you with an overview of the legislative proposal to enact the Addition of Lands to Reserves and Reserve Creation Act. This is an act to facilitate the setting apart of lands as reserves for the use and benefit of First Nations.
First, I’ll provide some brief context for this legislation.
[English]
Land is core to the identity of Indigenous peoples. It is their greatest asset and provides the foundation for First Nations to contribute to their own self-determination and self-sufficiency through community and economic development.
Additions to reserve significantly contribute to advancing reconciliation and improving the treaty relationship through the fulfillment of Canada’s outstanding historic obligations to First Nations.
The administration of reserve land under the Indian Act and the non-fulfilment of treaty obligations has left First Nations with thousands of legacy land issues, such as boundary problems, environmental contamination, unexploded ordinances from military use and so on.
More than 4 million acres of reserve land is still owed to First Nations stemming from legal obligations rooted in treaty land entitlement and specific claims.
Land requirements are also increasing to accommodate community population growth, demand for new housing and other public infrastructure.
First Nations are progressively interested in adding land to reserves to take advantage of economic development opportunities in particular within urban areas.
Urban reserves offer residents economic opportunities that are generally unavailable in more remote areas and give First Nation businesses the chance to establish themselves, and provide employment and training opportunities.
The current process of adding land to reserve is complex and time-consuming and many additions to reserve take well over five years to process. In addition, the Indian Act does not contemplate or provide adequate legislative tools to address the creation of reserves within existing infrastructure.
We also know that accommodating existing third-party interests is currently the largest impediment to timely processing of addition-to-reserve proposals. This leads to uncertainty, frustration and lost opportunities for First Nations and other stakeholders.
The proposed legislation is responsive to the complexity of the additions-to-reserve process and the continued desire of First Nations to expand their land base in ways that support their self-determination.
In short, the proposed legislation follows engagements with First Nations communities and organizations, house and Senate committee reports, and extends the technical tools that exist in the prairie provinces to reserve proposals in Canada, including those for community or economic development.
The proposed legislation is largely administrative in nature. It includes provisions that allow for timely decision-making and bring greater legal certainty for third-party interests. Specifically, the legislation provides for both statutory easements — and voluntary land exchanges where required for additions to reserve — and the approval of addition to reserve to occur by way of ministerial order rather than Order in Council. It also provides for the predesignation, or zoning of lands — a step required under the Indian Act for leasing lands on reserve — and the authority to put in place leases and permits prior to land being added to reserve.
The proposal is an incremental but important step in reforming the lengthy and complex process of adding land to reserve.
The department is committed to continuing the dialogue with First Nations, Indigenous organizations and other stakeholders in the coming months to identify and implement other features that will significantly reduce the time it takes to complete the addition-to-reserve/reserve-creation process. Thank you.
Eric Grant, Director, Community Lands Development, Lands and Environmental Management, Lands and Economic Development, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada: Good morning. My name is Eric Grant, and I’m pleased to provide a brief outline on the proposed amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that first received Royal Assent back in 1999. When it came into force nearly 20 years ago, the act ratified the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, which is a nation-to-nation agreement signed between Canada and 14 First Nations in 1996.
Together, the Framework Agreement and the accompanying legislation provide a mechanism for First Nations to opt out of nearly one third of the Indian Act and take on authority, control and responsibility for their reserve lands, resources and environment.
Today, more than 150 First Nations from across Canada have opted into First Nation Land Management, with 78 now fully operating under their own land code.
Since 2016, in response to requests from Indigenous rights holders, the department has been working with partners on these proposed amendments. While significant, the proposed amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act are categorized as administrative and practical in nature and form the first phrase of a broader land reform strategy.
I will now mention a few examples of the amendments to both the Framework Agreement and the First Nations Land Management Act. Some examples include that the proposed amendments would include a statement that acknowledges Canada’s pre-existing commitment to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In May 2016, the Government of Canada adopted UNDRIP without qualification and committed to its full and effective implementation in accordance with the Canadian Constitution. This reference is symbolic and furthers Canada’s reconciliation efforts.
Another set of amendments align voting procedures to other democratic processes in Canada by removing participation requirements. The act requires that communities must vote for their leadership to exercise their law-making powers under First Nations Land Management. Currently, a minimum number of voters must vote, and the majority of those who vote must vote to approve. The proposed amendments would allow First Nations to decide whether they want to use participation requirements as part of their vote or employ simple majority rules like many other voting processes in Canada.
The proposed amendments would also make improvements to how new lands are added to the reserve land base. Rather than having lands added under the Indian Act before they are transferred to First Nations Land Management, they will now be transferred directly under First Nations Land Management. This eliminates a significant administrative step.
The proposed amendments would also transfer capital monies, or monies that are derived from oil and gas and similar types of processes, directly to the First Nations. Currently only revenue monies, or monies that are derived from permitting and leasing, are part of the First Nations Land Management.
In closing, these amendments are strongly supported by First Nation partners and would further strengthen a successful First Nation-led sectoral self-government initiative, one that supports First Nations to enhance community and economic development. Thank you. We are pleased to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses for attending. Last month we heard from Mr. Harold Calla, the Executive Chair of the First Nations Financial Management Board, as you know, an institution established under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, and in his testimony he stated that we have to have the ability to be flexible and nimble as we move forward, but always moving forward in a way that looks to eradicate the poverty and social challenges that our Indigenous communities face.
I just came to this meeting from our joint anti-poverty caucus and heard a fair bit about how far we are from this. Last night, Evelyn Forget was speaking about some of the ways guaranteed livable incomes may address some of these issues.
I’m curious as to whether your department has looked at amendments that would help eradicate poverty and social challenges in Indigenous communities; and, as an example of that, whether you have looked in particular at guaranteed livable incomes as a means of increasing economic development for Indigenous communities and as a means of ensuring that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action could be implemented, given the intersection with the many issues that they aim to address.
Mr. Duschenes: Thank you very much for the question. As you, I’m sure, are aware, Harold Calla is one of our great leaders and great partners in this endeavour, being the Executive Chair of the Financial Management Board, and we work very closely with him and his board on a weekly basis.
Looking to make amendments specifically related to poverty and guaranteed income is not something we have looked at. However, I would like to say that working with the Financial Management Board and the First Nations Tax Commission, as well as the First Nations Finance Authority, the combination of those institutions working directly with communities has incredible impact now and has huge potential impact as more First Nations are scheduled to the act to help alleviate poverty. Through the taxation provisions and powers of the First Nations Tax Commission, working with First Nations to implement property taxes has already generated, just last year alone, over $54 million for communities through taxation.
Working with the Financial Management Board, their principal aim is to increase financial capacity and put in financial systems within communities for the sound financial management of community resources, another significant contributor to community well-being and assisting in alleviating poverty at the community level.
And, last, through the First Nations Finance Authority, that is the borrowing mechanism through this act where almost $600 million has already been borrowed to allow communities to build infrastructure, to improve economic and social infrastructure within the communities, certainly plays a significant role in increasing community well-being.
The last thing I’ll say is it’s worth noting that at the moment more than a third of First Nations in Canada are scheduled to the act, with more in the wings. There is obviously a recognition that from a financial and economic development perspective, the act has been a big success and does contribute to community well-being. However, we have not, as I mentioned, looked specifically at guaranteed income or making amendments specifically related to poverty, but increasing financial management and economic opportunities in the community is fundamental to what the act is for.
Ms. Waters: Thank you very much for the question.
With respect to the additions-to-reserve legislation, it doesn’t directly speak to economic development and wealth creation for First Nations, but it facilitates it. We have seen since 2015 a tenfold increase in the requests for urban reserves. One of the primary objectives of urban reserve creation is for economic development, where First Nations can lease land and gain substantial revenue from that activity.
This legislation will facilitate urban reserve creation, because it allows for an ability for the community to predesignate or pre-zone the land. Under the Indian Act, land has to be designated prior to being able to be leased and that requires community consultation, voting and consent. Typically, right now, in most of Canada, outside the prairie provinces, it has to occur after reserve creation. It makes it difficult for a First Nation to move at the speed of business and take on some exciting economic development projects.
These amendments will allow that activity to occur prior to the reserve creation, and it will also allow for third-party interests through permits and other instruments to be drafted ahead of time.
Through these small changes, we’ve heard very loudly from First Nations that these will be very important for enhancing their access to economic-development-ready lands in their communities.
Mr. Grant: Thank you. Similar to my colleagues, under the First Nations Land Management Act, we did not look at poverty specifically. Like the others, however, First Nations land management does unlock the potential for economic activity by removing First Nations from the control of the Indian Act. They take on jurisdiction to move at the speed of business to realize economic activity that can create community wealth and opportunity.
Since its genesis 20 years ago, we have seen there are more than 150 signed on to First Nations land management. There has been a recent announcement for another 50 over the next five years to come onto First Nations land management as well.
So we are seeing great interest in communities that will take on First Nation land management, not only for economic purposes but also for cultural purposes, to use the land as they see fit.
Senator Pate: In light of that, if, for instance, one of the First Nations currently under the agreement decided to manage their social services in some similar way to how health care has been, would they have the jurisdiction under the current provisions to implement a guaranteed livable income for their communities?
I should put that into context. To be fair, part of the reason I’m asking is because I’ve been meeting with Indigenous communities, and when the committee was up North and met with Indigenous communities, a number of them had never heard of the concept of guaranteed livable incomes. It came up in the context of them wanting to develop, for instance, economic development through tourism, hunting and that sort of thing.
They wanted to be able to take out young people onto the land to learn their language and skills, but in order to be able to receive social assistance, they had to stay in their community, look for nonexistent jobs and not be able to go out into the community. It strikes me that would be an obvious area. If it were something within their capacity to legislate or to govern that, they would.
Has that been contemplated? How could it be set up, and what provisions currently could be utilized to ensure that communities can take on and develop such initiatives?
Mr. Grant: With respect to First Nations land management, that has not been something we have contemplated with our stakeholders and our partners as part of it. It is specifically with respect to use and management of the land itself.
Ms. Waters: First Nations land management is First Nation-led initiative, as Eric has mentioned. This is a first step of a larger land transformation reform. In the next three to five years, our partners have indicated they would be interested in looking at expanding First Nation land management incrementally into other areas, such as wills and estates, and oil and gas management.
With respect to some social issues, those haven’t been directly identified, but some First Nations will go on to self-government. We have four that have gone on to self-government and many others that are in the self-government process.
First Nations land management builds a strong foundation and governance for First Nations to take on more jurisdiction.
Mr. Duschenes: I will add that, as you’re probably aware, both Minister Philpott and Minister Bennett have very strong transformation agendas, and there are other processes and changes underway and anticipated related to social programs, education, et cetera, that were not dealt with specifically by these three proposals.
Senator Patterson: I have a few questions on the ATR legislative changes. First, is there an obligation to consult with respect to the additions-to-reserve legislative changes, and did that take place?
Ms. Waters: Thank you for the question. We did consult. Since 2009 we have been working with First Nations to reform the ATR policy and legislative process. Most of the work was done between 2009 and 2014, where we worked with the joint technical working group with the Assembly of First Nations, which involved a number of other Indigenous organizations and representatives.
In 2016, the policy was approved, but other features were identified at that time, including the need for legislative change. For example, in 2012, the Assembly of First Nations issued a resolution calling on the government to bring forward legislative changes — essentially what we see here today — with respect to expanding the claim-settlement legislation in the prairie provinces.
Since the identification of this proposal, letters went out to all First Nations informing them of the changes. We also did a number of cross-country engagements. We have heard nothing but support for these changes. If anything, First Nations are just keen to get their ATRs processed faster.
Senator Patterson: Speaking of the prairie provinces, you would be aware that you’ve had some problems in Manitoba with the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee. Canada unilaterally amended the Manitoba Framework Agreement in 2012 and 2013, then went to binding arbitration in 2017. The adjudicator ruled that Canada had breached its obligation.
Did you consult with the Manitoba Treaty Land Entitlement Committee? We have heard from them that they are not happy with the ATR process. Did you consult with them and, if not, why not?
Ms. Waters: The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee was part of our outreach and engagement. We work with closely with them. We are working with them to address the issues that were identified in the arbitration.
This particular proposal essentially expands what they have available already through the Manitoba claims settlement legislation, but it expands to other activities for First Nations in the prairie provinces. Under the current legislation, the proposals that relate to committee and economic development still need to go through the regular process, which involves approvals through order-in-council and order in general council.
The Treaty Land Entitlement Committee is very much aware; we have spoken with them personally, and we continue to speak with them about this proposal. We are aware they are interested in having things progress more quickly. We are doing what we can to work with them in a very constructive way for that to occur.
Senator Patterson: You imply or you suggested that everyone was happy with the legislation. I think I heard you say that in talking about the consultations. Was the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba happy with and supportive of this legislation?
Ms. Waters: We haven’t heard that they are not satisfied with the legislation. I think they would like to see other features change in the whole ATR process. This proposal does not address the concerns that they have, so we continue to work with them on the larger addition-to-reserve picture.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that answer. Ms. Waters, you talked about the department being committed to continuing the dialogue with First Nations. Which department are you talking about? You work for Crown-Indigenous Relations Canada. Is that the department you’re referring to? In fact, I guess I’d like to ask: Is that a department?
Ms. Waters: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, I work Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. I also work closely with Indigenous Services Canada.
Minister Bennett was given a mandate by the Prime Minister to engage with First Nations and other Indigenous organizations to talk about the transformation with respect to the responsibilities of the two departments. I’m currently in the lands and economic development sector which continues to support both departments. When I speak about both departments, in fact, it’s the Government of Canada who has made commitments to continue to reform the additions-to-reserve process.
For example, we have a national advisory committee with Indigenous partners and it’s a technical committee. We are continuing to work through some of the issues that are trying to streamline the additions-to-reserve process, including looking for ways for First Nations and the departments to work better together alongside the lengthy process, which may take a few years. Many activities continue in that regard.
Senator Patterson: So, you have described Crown-Indigenous Relations Canada, I think, in your answer as a department, and that was my question. Is it a department?
Ms. Waters: Yes, it is a department.
Senator Patterson: Is CIRNA a department?
Ms. Waters: Yes.
Senator Patterson: And under what authority is it a department of the federal government?
Mr. Duschenes: As you know, with the announcement in August of 2017 that the former department of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development was going to be split into two and, more recently, that a minister would be named specifically for the Northern Affairs component, there is still the process underway of establishing the departmental legislation that will formally create CIRNA and ISC, or Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Indigenous Services. At the moment, as Susan has said, we work closely with both Minister Bennett under the CIRNA side and Minister Philpott under the Indigenous Services side pretty much on an ongoing basis.
There are some issues, for example, under Susan’s responsibility, related to the administration of lands that are still attached to the Indian Act, which then still come under the purview of Minister Bennett until both departments are formalized through legislation.
Senator Patterson: You folks may understand all those dotted lines and solid lines. I think the average person and maybe even some senators don’t understand that. I’ll leave it at that, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Before we move on to Senator Doyle, I would like to ask a supplementary on the additions to reserves.
I’m from Saskatchewan and I’m curious about whether the proposed changes in any way affect the relationship between provinces and First Nations. In Saskatchewan, the land that is available is Crown land and the province has said that with Crown land the right of first refusal does not go to First Nations.
Is there anything in Bill C-86 that would allow First Nations to have the right of first refusal when it comes to selecting Crown land for additions to reserves?
Ms. Waters: Thank you, chair, for your question. The proposed legislation essentially expands what’s currently in place in Saskatchewan across the rest of Canada. It does not change current approaches in Saskatchewan. Other than allowing the economic development and community development proposals to go by way of ministerial order and to have access to pre-reserve designation, it does not change the relationship with the province.
Senator Doyle: That’s pretty close to the question I was going to ask.
The Chair: Sorry.
Senator Doyle: It’s okay.
The bill allows for the minister to set aside additional lands for reserves. How would that policy interact with provincial and municipal governance in the same general geographic area? Is there a lot of interaction between municipalities when it comes to land in the same general area as the municipality might have?
Ms. Waters: Thank you for the question. What we have is a policy directive that would speak to those sorts of activities. The legislation doesn’t speak to consultation or engagement with municipalities or provinces, but we do follow a policy directive that was renewed in 2016.
Under that directive, First Nations do contact municipalities. If they need to get a service agreement, then they do work with municipalities to get those arrangements in place. We also involve some tax loss compensation.
Likewise, with the province, First Nations are required to reach out to the province to inform them of the proposal and to seek any feedback or comment with respect to a planned addition to reserve. Upon reserve creation, we do look for that information and we consider it and look for the First Nation to make very good efforts to work with provinces and municipalities. For the most part, things work out quite well.
Senator Doyle: I’m curious: How does a First Nation join a land management regime? Does it have to have a well-established governance situation with staff knowledgeable in land management and what have you? How does it go about doing it?
Mr. Grant: When there is a community that’s interested in participating in First Nation land management, they do submit a bit of an application whereby they identify their governance structures, their land management capabilities, their financial status, and those sorts of things, and we do an internal analysis within the department. It’s also provided to a selection committee that’s struck internally to look at those First Nations, and there’s a decision made as to whether they will participate.
Senator Doyle: So, if a First Nation should join a land management regime, they have ready access to funding and all of that kind of thing that professionals do?
Mr. Grant: That’s correct. We work with an external organization called the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre and that’s a technical organization across the country that works with First Nations to help them through what we call the developmental phase. It’s funded by Canada to help them develop their land code to prepare to take on a land law once they’ve had a successful vote. After a successful vote, Canada provides ongoing operational funding to the community.
Senator Doyle: This is a bit of a hard question, I know. When you talked about the more than 4 million acres of reserve land that is still owed to First Nations, how much of the overall Canadian landmass are we talking about here? It’s certainly not just 4 million acres, which is a relatively small amount.
Have you ever done any analysis as to how much of the overall Canadian landmass would be involved as First Nations land, or would you say all of it?
Ms. Waters: That’s an interesting question, thank you very much. We have approximately 8.8 million acres of land that’s currently reserve land, which is about 3.2 per cent of Canada. About 4 million more acres will add 1.5 per cent, if my math is correct, to the landmass, so it is still a small amount. That’s reserve land, which is land set aside under section 91(24) of the Constitution as reserve land.
Senator Doyle: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I wanted to focus my questions on the Indian moneys issue. You may be aware this committee held an oversight hearing on this to try to learn what Indian moneys was and we got so sufficiently confused and so few answers that we recommended a roundtable be held to really have engagement from First Nations leaders, the government and so on. Senator Dyck and I were invited and attended that roundtable at Tsuut’ina in Alberta a couple of years ago.
I read in your comments that these amendments will enable First Nations under the regime to access their Indian money upon a successful vote by their communities.
I’m looking at clause 369 in the bill, and I want to make sure I understand this to be as simple as it appears to be. It says that “on the coming into force of the land code of a First Nation,” — so obviously they have to have a land code first — “all revenue moneys and capital moneys held by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of the First Nation . . . cease to be Indian moneys and shall be transferred to the First Nation.”
I read that to say if you got yourself into the First Nations Land Management Act by virtue of having a land code, you now have access to your money and there’s no bureaucrat in charge of approving whatever it is the chief and council want to spend the money on.
But it says: “Subject to section 46.1,” so I’m looking for the trapdoor here. What is section 46.1, and what condition is that?
Mr. Grant: I can speak generally to what the provision is about. It’s meant to catch those who have already been under land code who already have their revenue moneys currently. So this is how those First Nations that already have a land code in place will get their capital moneys brought in as well under the act. It’s automatic for all new First Nations that come in, but those who currently have a land code have to make a request.
Senator Tannas: We heard about that, where they have to send in a request, and it takes months and months, even though there’s nothing other than a cheque that should be processed, but a whole bunch of people have to look at it for some reason, and they were all mystified as to why it took six months to get money out of their account when they can walk down the street to their bank and get it.
Is all of that, then, out of the way, so that if you’re already in you don’t have to go through that process? You’re going to get your money transferred to your government, with everybody out of the way in Ottawa.
Mr. Grant: Yes. Thank you for your question.
Senator Tannas: Does this include all oil and gas revenue, all mineral rights, any other revenue coming from use of land? Will the federal government be out of the business of managing, holding onto, overseeing First Nations’ money that comes from these activities, as long as you have a land code? Is that right?
Mr. Grant: Thank you for your question. Yes, that is correct. Once you’ve gone under land code, then the federal government is out of the business of Indian moneys altogether.
Senator Tannas: And you’re not going to take extra time now to have a land code approval or anything; is that right? Does a land code need the approval of the government, or are there kind of automatic terms that allow you to have a land code without having to go through the same merry-go-round to get a land code approved?
Mr. Grant: Thank you very much for your question. The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management outlines what must be included in a land code, and there’s an independent third party that’s appointed as part of the process to make sure the land code conforms with those provisions. As long as it conforms with those provisions, the First Nation will conduct a community vote. Once they’ve voted to approve that, the land code is in force.
Senator Tannas: I’m aware of one First Nation in Alberta that was created administratively, and I’m speaking about the Stoney Nakoda band. There are three bands, Bearspaw, Chiniquay and Wesley, but the Wesley guys have a different name now. The problem is they weren’t ever in their millennia of existence a nation, but they were created as a nation because they happened to be close to each other; it was handy for the government, so they called them a nation. Their Indian moneys have been lumped together.
First, are there others in a similar situation? Second, is there any process to help them figure that extra dynamic that we’ve put on top of them as to how they would have three votes and everybody gets extricated in the way I would think they would want to?
Ms. Waters: Thank you for your question. Right now we don’t have any First Nations in Alberta that are operational under First Nations Land Management Act. So the Stoney Nakoda nations are not able to benefit from the First Nations land management provisions or the moneys provisions.
With respect to how the moneys provisions operate within that environment, we would have to get back to you, because we’re not responsible for the overall Indian moneys management program in the department.
I don’t know if you have anything further to add, Chris.
Mr. Duschenes: Thank you for the question. Under the First Nation Financial Management Act, there are now in these amendments provisions for enabling the creation of regulations that specifically in the Stoney case would allow those three nations to tax separately.
At the moment, there are no provisions that deal with joint ownership of land to allow those three independent nations to tax separately and now these amendments would allow regulations. That’s just on the taxation side, not on the Indian money side.
Senator Tannas: But at least with this, there is a very clear path to land independence, if you will, for everyone. Is that fair?
Mr. Duschenes: Certainly there’s a clear path for taxation independence, a regulation enabling taxation independence under the Fiscal Management Act.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we move to Senator Coyle, I’d like to follow up with a supplementary.
There’s also the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act and I believe the Stoney and so on are on land that is oil rich. I’m wondering why they wouldn’t have been able to access their Indian moneys through that particular act.
From the information we got two years ago, there was only one First Nation, and that was in Saskatchewan, that had managed to gain control of their Indian moneys under that particular act. During your consultations, was there any suggestion that the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act should be altered as well?
Mr. Duschenes: There have been ongoing discussions related to that — I would say not more importantly, but sort of in a parallel track — and we are working with the Indian Resource Council and with IOGC, Indian Oil and Gas Canada, to rethink the entire oil and gas management regime.
We have been working very closely with the IRC over the last few months, and they will be presenting to their members at their AGM in January or early February a proposal or a set of options to move toward the Government of Canada getting completely out of the oil and gas administration process. That’s going to be a long, complicated process, but the fact that we have very good relations with them now and they are presenting options to their members in January is an encouraging start.
The Chair: One quick question with regard to the First Nations Land Management Act: How many First Nations as of today have land codes?
Mr. Grant: Thank you for your question. As of today, there are 78 First Nations across Canada with land codes. The lands advisory board will all state there are 81. They give that number because there are three that have moved on to full self-government, but they did pass land codes.
The Chair: Are the self-governing First Nations counted in the 78?
Mr. Grant: They’re not counted in the 78, no.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Mr. Duschenes, Ms. Waters and Mr. Grant, for being with us today.
I’m encouraged to see that what we’re talking about today is legislation that’s been created in response to the First Nations communities themselves, and also that it’s optional, that people can opt in as they so choose. That’s an encouraging thing to see.
I have a general question, and then I have two rather specific ones about the presentation.
The general question is more about the impediments. What are the impediments to First Nations opting in? What are those impediments, if you could share that with us, and then I’ll get to the specifics.
Mr. Duschenes: Thank you. I’ll speak specifically to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. The act is structured and evolving in a way that we hope there are not impediments. I’ll give you an example of the process.
A First Nation request to be scheduled to the act which, once that is completed, meaning that they are officially subscribed to the act, the Financial Management Board then has the authority to start working with them on the development of their financial systems and eventually, hopefully, a financial certification process. So the FMB, under Harold Calla, who was spoken about before, has the authority to come in and start working at whatever level the community finds itself in, in terms of financial management, to get to the next stage, which would allow them eventually to borrow once they have their financial administration law and hopefully their certification.
Recently you may have heard from Mr. Calla and others that the Financial Management Board has been working even before the scheduling time, where they have been working with some selected communities who have been in default management, which is a very encouraging sign. It’s a bit of an expanding role for the FMB to allow them to work with the communities who actually may face impediments to getting scheduled to the act. Eventually certainly Mr. Calla and the FMB’s vision is that there would be no impediments, that they would have the ability and the resources to work with any community, at any level, on the pre-phases to get scheduled to the FMA act and then move on to the other stages of financial sophistication and allowing them to borrow.
It’s worth noting that in Budget 2018 there were significant investments to allow the Financial Management Board and the First Nations Tax Commission to increase their physical footprint across the country. As you are probably aware, the three institutions are based in British Columbia. They are now opening offices across the country which will allow them to be much closer to the communities who may have a desire to join the act, including all of those who may not be ready yet to be scheduled, but want to build the capacity to be able to be scheduled. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. That’s very helpful.
Now to my specific questions. Ms. Waters, in your presentation on page 3, you speak about — and this is just for my own understanding — accommodating existing third-party interests is currently the largest impediment to timely processing of addition-to-reserve proposals.
Could you speak to that with some specificity?
Ms. Waters: Thank you for your question. When the reserve process is conducted and the reserve is created, we respect all existing third-party interests. In all cases it requires us to do a search of the land. Over the time that the land has been identified, there have been at the start existing third-party interests such as hydro easements, Bell cable lines, transmission lines, highways. There are many different activities on reserve. There may also be businesses on reserve that have existing leases. There may be mortgages on the land. All these issues play into being addressed.
We’re moving from provincial jurisdiction over to federal jurisdiction. Sometimes those interests don’t even have legal recognition, but they’ve been there for many years, so they have something that may have been expired. We take that in trust and we update it and transfer it under the Indian Act, where it’s under the Indian Act, under First Nations Land Management Act, and now with the amendments to the First Nations land management, those instruments are created for land code First Nations.
There’s a whole host of those types of interests. We have surface rights holder, subsurface rights holders. I don’t know if that answers your question with enough detail.
Senator Coyle: Yes, that’s perfect. That’s what I was trying to get at, exactly what it was.
My final very specific question is for you, Mr. Grant, and that is the second bullet at the bottom of page 4, where you’re looking at amendments aligning voting procedures.
Can you tell me what was the original rationale for the original voting requirements? Where did that come from, what was the logic behind that, and why are we now changing it?
Mr. Grant: Thank you very much for your question. In terms of the original thinking behind participation thresholds, I think there was a desire of the government of the day to make sure that the will of the community was appropriately demonstrated in the voting process. They wanted to ensure a minimum number of people showed up for the vote.
Now the rationale for changing that is we’ve had enough votes over the 20-year lifespan of the Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management that we’ve seen patterns where, in the majority of votes, approximately 80 per cent of votes, it’s very strong support and it’s the participation threshold that generally will cause the vote to fail. Predominantly that happens in large communities with large off-reserve populations, and getting at that off-reserve vote has been problematic for some of those communities.
In the voting process, if you don’t vote, it’s a “no” vote. I’m not sure that off-reserve members often understand that. They may feel like it’s not their place to vote in an on-reserve context, but by not voting, it’s a“ no” vote.
Mr. Duschenes: May I add quickly ratification processes across the various acts and policies that we have — including the self-government policies and the comprehensive claims — are recognized for their inconsistency in terms of approach and recognized exactly for what Mr. Grant says in terms of being problematic. We are doing a lot of work in the department to work with First Nations on completely rethinking ratification across the board and what appropriate standards are, et cetera.
Senator McCallum: Thank you for your presentations. I wanted to speak about the underlying structural problems that exist within the federal system.
The legal and health systems for First Nations have not worked well and, in fact, have created more illness and increasing numbers of Indigenous people being incarcerated. For failing systems like this, patchwork fixes have been put in place forever and they don’t resolve the deep structural problems that continue to exist.
Does this act fall into that category, where I feel more deep structural changes are required? Part of the problems we have are third-party interests and also the provinces have not worked well with First Nations. I continue to see that as I’m working with my province of Manitoba. It seems there are so many problems that keep coming up, just listening to the conversation this morning.
Mr. Duschenes: Certainly. Thank you for the question. It is a larger question than the amendments and the ATR legislation proposed. However, there are certainly significant elements in the amendments proposed under the Fiscal Management Act, as an example, that will allow the three institutions to work beyond the community level but with aggregate Indigenous or First Nation groups.
For example, the First Nations Health Authority in British Columbia is very anxious to work with the three institutions to allow them to borrow through the First Nations Finance Authority to build much stronger health infrastructure in the participating First Nations in British Columbia. I believe 42 are part of the First Nations Health Authority in B.C.
These amendments don’t deal directly with some of the systemic causes you are raising, but allowing something like the First Nations Health Authority in B.C. to have access to the act to borrow significant funds for health infrastructure creation will certainly help, from the health-delivery perspective, in those communities.
The vision there that the institutions have put forward eventually is that other aggregates that are interested in other parts of the country, including in Manitoba. If there are collective groups that would like to get certified and borrow through the First Nation Finance Authority to improve service delivery and infrastructure on reserve, that’s what one of these amendments will specifically allow them to do.
Ms. Waters: To add to my colleague, it would be wonderful if these three pieces of legislation could really chip away at the structural issues you’ve identified. They are incremental changes, and they are administrative, but I think they move us in a forward direction.
I will say I have heard from First Nations that the third-party interests are a great obstacle. Right now, the law respects third-party interests, and we know that, over the time it takes to take a piece of land and add it to a reserve, many third-party interests have added to the issue.
We met with a First Nation yesterday where they’ve within waiting for many years for their reserve to be created. In that time, there’s been a lot of activity: a new school built, an airport on the lands and that type of thing. So that just continues to add to the complexity.
We recognize we need to do a better job. We need to process things faster.
With respect to broader reforms on additions to reserve, we are interested to have that conversation. It will take a lot of time. We heard from First Nations that these small changes are important changes, and let’s not wait for the three to five years it’s going to take to have that longer conversation. They’ll make a big difference now and improve the addition-to-reserve process, especially for the areas that are near urban environments.
That’s just to say that we recognize and appreciate the concerns, and this is a step along the way.
Mr. Grant: Thanks for your question. I would echo what my colleagues have said. On the First Nations Land Management Act front, we took similar approaches in that these were some of the immediate incremental changes that could be effected and done now. While administrative in nature, they have a significant impact on First Nations that participates, especially things like the voting changes.
We recognize that some of the more difficulty issues — wills and estates, how to deal with Indian oil and gas, and perhaps even discussions around traditional territories and how to manage those sorts of issues — would be a longer-term discussion, perhaps a three- to five-year window, so that’s what we’re looking to do under the First Nations land management.
Senator McCallum: What is the collateral being put up for all the money that is being borrowed? If they can’t pay it back, what happens?
Mr. Duschenes: Thank you for that very important question.
Under the Fiscal Management Act, communities are able to borrow against various sources of their own-source revenue. In Ontario, for example, significant revenue comes in from gaming and an agreement with the provincial government from lotteries. They can leverage that through the First Nation Finance Authority. Across the country, there are other sources.
You will be interested that, in Manitoba, the First Nations that are borrowing are borrowing very large amounts of money. They have borrowed almost $145 million against their own-source revenue.
At the moment, the provisions of the act only allow communities to borrow against revenue coming from the outside. That may be from the provinces and from private businesses as well.
However, you may also have heard that, under the leadership of the First Nations Finance Authority, they have been very interested in monetization. That means that communities would be allowed to borrow against federal transfers that come in on an annual basis. For example, if a community gets X million dollars, they would be allowed to take a small portion of that annual allocation and transfer it to the First Nations Finance Authority, which leverages it on the open market. The authority lends a much greater amount back to the community, and the community pays that off slowly against the federal transfers that are coming in.
That would allow a community to build infrastructure in 2018 dollars and pay for it over years, as opposed to the current infrastructure development process on reserve where the infrastructure is generally built with 100 per cent upfront cash from the federal government.
But at the moment, the provisions of the act only allow borrowing against own-source revenue, which is revenue that is not coming from the federal government.
Senator McCallum: And is the land ever used?
Mr. Duschenes: As collateral?
Senator McCallum: Yes.
Mr. Duschenes: It’s very difficult to use reserve land as collateral — to leverage that on the market.
Very interestingly, the First Nations Finance Authority has very high credit rating on the bond-rating agency from Standard & Poors and others due to the level of security in the processes they have put in place that guarantee — perhaps that’s too strong a word — as much as possible that the communities are a very safe lending bet, because they have a regular stream of revenue. Their processes and ratings keep increasing, and are seen on the bond market as being a very reliable and stable process that guarantees investors are going to be paid back.
They also have their contingency funds that are set aside, as well. If there is ever a problem with repayment, there are funds set aside. That hasn’t been the case yet; since 2006, repayment has been a non-issue. Repayment has been very successful.
Senator McCallum: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: Good morning. I’m very pleased all three of you are here. I arrived a little late, as I was caught in the traffic.
I am from Nova Scotia. Prior to coming to the Senate, I worked with the Membertou First Nation for about 20 years. I am very pleased to see the changes that are being proposed here. Membertou went through the Fiscal Management Act. We were eventually certified by the Financial Management Board, and I believe we were the first First Nation in Canada to draw funds through the FNFA. So I’m very pleased to see those changes and the streamlining of the Fiscal Management Act.
Our community right now is in the process of considering a land code under the Land Management Act. Again, I’m glad to see those changes to make that easier.
One of my duties, which was probably the most frustrating of all, was responsibility for additions to reserves. I did that for about 20 years. We must have processed 15 parcels of land in that period. We’re an urban First Nation. I can recall the most frustrating experience was with this 100-acre piece of land we were proposing to add to the Membertou reserve. It took us 10 years to get it through the process.
Ms. Waters, I know you’ve answered this a couple of times, but I’m trying to understand how to deal with this. The single biggest problem in the ATR process is third-party interests. With this particular ATR I’m speaking about, there were a number of third-party interests, but this one party was a right-of-way that was owned by a private homeowner who was non-Indigenous, non-Mi’kmaq. This piece of land was obviously off reserve. We acquired it, and along with this came this piece of driveway. We couldn’t extinguish that third-party interest. They refused to cede it. That little driveway must have cost us at least five years. Eventually, we just carved it out, and the rest of the 100 acres became reserve land, except this little driveway in the corner.
How can we speed up the addressing of third-party interests in the ATR process?
Ms. Waters: Thank you very much for the question. As I mentioned before, there is no one easy answer, but there are many different areas that we can look to improve.
We received money in Budget 2018 to work with the Surveyor General Branch of Natural Resources Canada to look at dispute resolution mechanisms for survey and boundary issues just like the one you’ve described. We’re just getting underway with developing that approach.
That allows us to create a forum for a First Nation like yours to sit down with a third party and work through a framework of a process in order to get to some resolution.
To what you’re speaking about, the provinces and municipalities have powers of expropriation with commensurate compensation. We don’t have that for the additions to reserve legislation right now. There has been some discussion about it in the future.
These are some future attributes we would need to look for. Obviously, there would be a lot of discussion about a change like that, but it may be an opportunity where we do have some difficult issues that don’t work their way through either a dispute resolution process or other mechanisms.
Your experience now with having to cut out a portion of the reserve is one that we’ve seen repeated many times.
There was a question earlier about some of the impediments to moving towards First Nation land management. I know Membertou has been working for many years toward the land code process and the reality is most of the land has some significant legacy issues, not only with additions to reserve. The reserve land does have issues associated with boundaries and some contamination and other features that do delay the process of moving to land code.
Under land code, the First Nation takes on full responsibility and liability for the land. Canada continues on with responsibility up until that point, but after the land code is approved and the First Nation becomes operational under First Nation Land Management, they take on full responsibility.
We can completely understand why a First Nation doesn’t want to take on the legacy issues and be responsible for them, but it results in some areas being cut off. The First Nation may want to keep some land under the Indian Act for which they can’t resolve the interest immediately but they want to move to land code.
Land and movement of land interests are complex issues so we’re continuing to work through those. We’re working through it with First Nations partners and hearing experiences like Membertou First Nation’s is helpful for us to understand and see what we could have done differently if we look at it in today’s terms.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we go to second round with Senator Patterson, I would like to ask a question. I noticed in the briefing material that there are about five or six places where matrimonial real property is mentioned.
First, I would like to know why the changes were made. Was that at the request of a particular community or a particular organization who suggested that they be changed? What is the main thrust of the changes that are being implemented?
Mr. Grant: Thank you for the question. I think this would have most to do with the First Nations Land Management Act. Under the act, First Nations currently do have the ability to create their own matrimonial real property laws, or they can use the laws under the federal legislation and the provisional rules in the absence of creating a law at the community level.
What the amendments did for First Nations land management is we wanted to get some clear definitions of spouse and death of a spouse included in those laws, because they were not included in the previous version.
Also, in the case where a community has a law that’s under the federal legislation, they can create their own law under land code, if they come under land code, and it will sort of trump that federal legislation.
The Chair: So, there are communities that are wishing to enact their own matrimonial real property law?
Mr. Grant: Yes, there are. I can’t recall the actual number now. I think it’s 46 communities that have created their own laws under land code, and I think around eight or 10 that have done it under federal legislation.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: First, I want to say that I’m very pleased to see the amendments relating to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the land management. I don’t think it should be in a budget bill, but that’s another debate.
I’m still curious about why we have two departments here before us and who does what. Mr. Duschenes, you talked about the August 2017 announcement of the Prime Minister, I believe it was. At that time, the announcement of the Prime Minister was the department would be split in two. There was talk about decolonizing and a new relationship, and the Prime Minister mentioned that this split would require legislation.
We haven’t seen any legislation yet. What do CIRNA and Indigenous Services do, and why is CIRNA involved in the ATR matter, which for years which has been handled by Indian and Northern Affairs or Indigenous Services and Northern Affairs Canada? Why is this new department involved with ATR?
Mr. Duschenes: I will answer generally and I will pass it to Susan for the ATR issue.
You will probably recall that the announcement in August actually stems from a recommendation from RCAP from 20 years earlier that a clear division be made between the service delivery arm in Canada for Indigenous people, or those who deliver programs and money, and another arm that deals with the longer term and the fundamental issues like the relationship between the Crown and Indigenous people.
The complexity in actually making that line clear as to what is pure service delivery and what relates to the longer term and the bigger picture — Crown-Indigenous Relations — is exceedingly complex.
Actually, I think this is a very interesting example. These three pieces of legislation and the amendments and the creation of the ATR legislation are very interesting examples where these pieces contribute very significantly, in my mind and the FMA leaders’ minds, to help these communities move to self-determination and sustainability. Is that a service delivery issue or a Crown-Indigenous relations issue? That is the crux of what our daily life is. We are providing both the FMB, for example, as directly a service-providing organization, but providing it very much in the context of Crown-Indigenous relations and the move towards self-determination.
That has created the recognition of some of the functions of the former INAC being very much between the two departments and where both Ministers Philpott and Bennett have expressed a lot of interest in the work, in my case, of the three FMA institutions.
On the legislative front, you recognize the creation of new departments will require new enabling legislation, and I can’t speak to when that will happen. At the moment, we’re working under direction from both, but there are still some legal requirements related to the functions of the minister that stem from existing pieces of legislation that have been retained by Minister Bennett under Crown-Indigenous Relations or have been transferred to Minister Philpott under Indigenous Services.
I imagine that line where we sit will be clarified in due course, but at the moment we do very much represent the interests of both departments.
Senator Patterson: You folks are sorting this out among yourselves, as you’ve explained. How do First Nations who are having challenges with ATR — and we’re heard a lot about those challenges; Senator Christmas outlined his own experience — know who to call or where to go now that there is this new department-in-waiting? How do they figure this out?
Ms. Waters: Thank you very much for the questions. Right now, while we are in transition during the process of transformation into the two departments, we don’t require the First Nations to understand which minister they need to move towards. We act as a one-window approach and, if one minister has to approve one transaction, we make it seamless for the First Nation.
We work very closely with the Indigenous Service Canada regional offices. I’m in touch with them many times a day. They are very much our regional delivery mechanism.
We also work very closely with both ministers and both ministers’ offices. We can say the Land and Economic Development Sector, when it comes to land, doesn’t make First Nations have to navigate through a system where we know that some decisions are under one minister and some are under another minister. It is seamless and I would say that it’s working quite well.
Mr. Duschenes: If I could just add, our regional offices across the country or the footprint across the country is largely on the Indigenous Services side. The point of entry for First Nations is to our regional offices, not exclusively but almost exclusively, and that’s Indigenous Services. The regional operations people are all Indigenous Services in our regional offices.
Senator Patterson: I wonder why I’m hearing that people have no clue about where they should go and are confused.
That leads me to the question I started asking in first round, and that is the authority under which Crown-Indigenous Relations Canada is operating. There is no legislation yet. Is it coming? Until the legislation is approved by Parliament, under what authority has this new department been established, spending money and hiring people? I presume there are senior managers. Under what authority is CIRNA operating now?
Mr. Duschenes: Madam Chair, if you don’t mind, I think it would be worth providing a written response to this that describes the order-in-council process that has taken place; the Governor-in-Council process that has taken place so far; the legal framework as to what has been maintained from the DIAND act; what has been able to be transferred through order-in-council; and what the timeline is for the creation of legislation that would then firmly create the legal framework for both departments.
The Chair: That sounds like a good idea. If you could send that document to the clerk, we would relay it to the committee members.
Senator Patterson: May I say, Madam Chair, a recommendation to steering would be that we hear from the Manitoba folks on this bill as we move towards considering it. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we adjourn the meeting, I have one quick question.
You’ve consulted widely. During the consultation, did you speak with anyone from the national Aboriginal economic development board? Were they part of the consultation process?
Mr. Duschenes: Yes, very good question. Now, with the official name change, the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, I have the pleasure of my shop providingthe secretarial services to the NIEDB, so we are in constant contact with the members individually as well as collectively.
You are, I’m sure, aware that they produced a report several years ago on ATR. They produced a report on Indian moneys. Not just through their reports, but also through their quarterly meetings we consult and engage with them regularly. The leaders of the Fiscal Management Act institutions have met with them over the years and sought their advice and have provided advice to the NIEDB. To answer your question, yes, they are very much involved in the process.
The Chair: We have come to the end of our time, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses this morning. We went over our hour.
Our second panel was unable to be with us due to technical difficulties. We were going to do it by video conference from Inuvik and for some reason it didn’t quite work out.
Nevertheless, we had more time to grill our witnesses this morning. I want to thank you for giving us an overview and answering our questions.
(The committee adjourned.)