9:30 am PST, May 23, 2024
SFN/Committee Consideration
- What does SFN what to prioritize with respect to LC (law development for preservation, conservation, new development on reserve lands, etc.)?
- Are there SFN members that may want to pursue Justice of Peace training?
- SFN to conduct a quality review of the services that SFN members want.
- SFN to review in-house policies and create a list of those policies that would overlap with LC.
- Meet with Doig to ask questions about their LC.
Meeting Minutes
First half of the meeting, Q&A with Jackie Brown. Steven Roy Johnston to join later (no notes for the discussion)
A recap and overview of Land Code “LC” (how many nations are involved, key years, etc.) and the LABRC’s function
- LC was an initiative that was set forward by FNs. About 13 FN groups (including West Bank) approached Canada with a potential court case on the inherent right to manage reserve lands. About 12 FNs were in support of this in 1996. Canada decided to go into negotiations. These negotiations led to the development of the Framework Agreement, which then set the path to develop LCs and individual agreements.
- LC does not affect Treaty Rights nor Title, which is the same for nations without Treaty Rights. LC will not affect any rights going forward.
- LC maintains FNs reserve lands and expropriation by Canada or other government will not be done unless it is for the safety of the country (e.g., war).
- LABRC supports the priorities of FNs and helps shape the movement of the development. Funding mechanisms may be available depending on the stage/priorities of the FN. LABRC has multiple specialists that can assist FNs in LC, such as Hilary Black, Stephanie (last name?) and Chantal (last name?), at no cost.
- When it is time, it is up to SFN to decide what to prioritize with respect to Land Code (law development for preservation, conservation, new developments on reserve lands, etc.).
- There are 119 operational FNs, 160 FN in development (e.g., Kispiox), and about 50-75 FN interested in LC.
- What about crown land and non-reserve land? LC is only pertaining to reserve lands.
- What are some of the reasons FNs have signed into a Framework Agreement with LABRC? There are various reasons such as wanting power back to manage reserve lands, developing laws that are applicable to the FN, not having to go to Canada and wait on a decision, have decision making power, among others.
- For example. SFN’s gravel pit – with a LC, SFN could keep the money from the gravel pit sales rather than give it to Canada.
By-laws – references to other FNs that have by-laws that the Committee can look to?
- LC involves laws, rather than “by-laws,” which was noted as a colonial construct and usually requires a by-law officer. Laws are enforceable and do not require a by-law officer, which allows for FNs to adjust the laws to their circumstances (e.g., animal control law for farm animals on reserve lands, environmental protection laws, community quality laws, etc.). It is up to the FN to decide on what makes sense for their community.
- There are ways to utilize the laws for enforcement, e.g., Cloud Lake (operational, 2006) recently developed protection laws.
- Police enforcement? Depending on the FN’s relationship with law enforcement, there may be an opportunity to use training powers or reestablish relationships. The LABRC can support this aspect.
- LABRC has worked with FNs and RCMP. LABRC also educates superintendents on what LC means.
- It was noted that SFN has a shortage of people and officers available to come to reserve and support. LABRC suggested utilizing the Justice of Peace and looking at the membership in SFN (are there members that may want to pursue Justice of Peace training?).
- Komox had an issue with squatters on reserve lands, plus the landlord was a member. Komox tried to address this issue without RCMP support and so they enforced their laws then contacted the Justice of Peace. Komox won and enabled the enforcement of law. Justice of Peace supplied funding after this incident.
Child welfare – are there other examples of FNs that have child welfare laws?
- LABRC does not recall seeing a law explicitly for child welfare. There are community quality protection laws, but those may not speak to family structure and peace.
- Drug and alcohol laws. Could this be blanketed under a drug and alcohol law? LABRC is not familiar with drug and alcohol laws. LABRC suggested reviewing trespassing and community protection laws, and doing a quality review of the services that SFN members want.
Banishment laws?
- There are banishment laws, but it depends on the level of banishment. This is a sensitive topic and depends on whether it is banishment for non-members or for members. For non-members, the banishment process is more secure, whereas non-members, the process is on the table and would be up to SFN.
Examples of laws?
- Burning, cultural heritage, fireworks, land registry, property assessment, solid waste management, tree timber business permitting and licensing, community quality, housing, zoning, property transfer, allotments, spousal, cannabis, comprehensive community planning, false alarms, community indemnity, dispute resolutions, subdivision and development, trespassing, animal control, animal licensing, committees, emergency management, financial administration, building, community approvals, COVID-19, enforcement and ticketing, noise control, soil deposit and transfer, traffic, etc.!
- COVID-19? This is one of the newest law developments, only a few FNs have this law in effect. In summary, the COVID-19 law is around community protection and minimizing the impacts on members.
- Given that some of these laws are in-house for SFN already, LABRC suggested reviewing all the policies of SFN. LC can be complimentary to in-house policies, depending on what makes sense for the FNs.
Are there capacity building supports for FN? Administrative support? Implementation funding?
- Annual funding for operational LCs is $368,000.00.
- Transition funding can be up to $200,000.00.
- The first year of the transition phase would be $100,000.00 plus $368,000.00. Year 2 will supple an additional $100,000.00 on top of the annual funding.
- When looking at avenues for HR, there may be additional funding depending on where the law is and where HR power is needed.
- What drives the funding? Every 5 years, funding is negotiated with Canada and the Treasury Board. Canada is to consider the cost of living plus inflation. However, the funding will not drop below $368,000.00.
- Can LABRC provide examples of how FN spend the annual funding? How much is spent on legal, community engagement and other stuff? Is there a template for SFN? LABRC does not delve into where the money is going. The funding also depends on what the FN is working on at the time. LABRC suggested reaching out to other FN leaders for examples of spending allocations.
Are there examples of LC creating more services through provincial streams?
- Doig River made an agreement with the city of Fort St. Johns where it talks about water, sewers, etc. Doig will be invited to a Committee Meeting, so SFN can ask questions, or Carmen is to attend a meeting with Doig to ask questions.
What about additions to reserve lands?
- LABRC and their specialists are currently reviewing this. LABRC has approached Canada and said it is too cumbersome, and the process can be streamlined and more protected. Hopefully the process can be reduced to 2-3 years, although this not finalized yet.
- TLE lands can apply and manage LC simultaneously.
- A new system is being developed with BC Land Survey Branch for a land registry that is user friendly with plain language, has easier mechanisms to register leases and agreements, and is not tied up in the current system. Canada and LABRC are involved in this.
- LABRC has specialists that produce land use plans, which could be something that SFN may want to utilize for what is within reserve lands (zoning laws).
How has LC evolved with the political changes and is LC aligned with new legislation (UNDA, etc.)? Modernized?
- One mechanism of UNDRIP/UNDA is already in LC and the LC today is more plain language than in the past. Older LCs have a lot of legal language and cross referencing, whereas today, BC LC samples are more understandable and shorter (about 25-28 pages).
- LABRC will evolve LC over time to incorporate more UNDRIP/UNDA references and TRC Calls to Action.
There may be a change in government, could this cause changes for LC?
- Under previous conservative government (Harper), LABRC and LC was still operating well. LABRC does not anticipate problems if current government were to shift.
For FNs in the process of developing LC, what is a common challenge that most of the FNs have faced? What are the main challenges that SFN may face?
- The hardest part is putting in the work during developing and then transitioning. In addition, there could be capacity challenges. LABRC stated they can support the development of a workplan. Since LABRC is a standalone organization, their support is at the request of the FN, and LABRC does not apply pressure to rush through development or transitioning.
- Sometimes FN leadership is not on the same page. It is key for leadership to be onboard for this work to be successful.
- For example, Doig had one council that was not on board.
SFN has operated independently in the past, what advice does LABRC have for SFN when it comes to federal and provincial financial relationships?
- With LC, SFN would set the process (e.g., permitting, protection, forestry) and LABRC would support the process to ensure SFN has everything in-house. There are mechanisms already in place with permitting that SFN can lean on.
- Half-way was noted as an example since they are going through court.
Being a numbered Treaty, there are obligations for SFN that need to be maintained, there is a need to understand SFNs level of responsibility.
- Legacy projects – if things are found after LC, it will still be on Canada’s watch. Legacy funding would be supplied by Canada and maintained by SFN.
- Phases 1-3 are on Canada’s watch/time. If there are other environmental issues under Canada’s watch, there is still a possibility to utilize the funding and address the issues.
- Land Destruction Report – this can always be revisited if there is still something there or not to SFNs standard.
Where is SFN in LC development?
- Phase 1, environmental assessment has been completed (Carmen). If there are issues, they will be addressed in Phase 2, depending on the severity of the impact (e.g., contaminants).
- Phase 1 identifies potential issues. Phases 2 and 3 deal with those issues.
- Carmen completed an EA about 10 years ago, which had a list from 10 years before that. Carmen noted that some SFN businesses came up on the list, which could be a federal concern.
- Clean-ups may or may not happen, especially if those sites do not satisfy the federal threshold (e.g., SFN farm is not scoring high enough to cause federal concern nor get funding for Phase 2). SFN cannot clean up these sites either.
- There are about 15 potential sites of concern on reserve, some of the sites are: SFN farm, old fuel tanks near the creek, private lots, Crow Feathers, and the industrial park, among others.
- There are no confirmed contaminations, but these areas pose a higher risk than others.
- Legacy funding could be utilized for this.
