GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

ABORIGINAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, February 18, 2015 9:00 a.m.

2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 February 18, 2015 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 18, 2015 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 October 1, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 1, 2014 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS

4.1 Bob Joseph, Founder and Principle Trainer, Indigenous Corporate Training Inc. Subject: Working Effectively with Aboriginal Peoples

5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee Priorities and Work Plan Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal & Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated February 10, 2015 titled “2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee Priorities and Work Plan.”

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

February 10, 2015

ARC - 1

Aboriginal Relations Committee Agenda February 18, 2015

Agenda Page 2 of 3

5.2 Appointment of the 2015 Local Government Treaty Table Representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh Negotiations Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal & Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor That the GVRD Board appoint: a) _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Katzie negotiations for 2015. b) _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Tsleil-Waututh negotiations for 2015.

5.3 Appointment of Metro Vancouver’s 2015 Representative to the UBCM First

Nations Relations Committee Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal & Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor That the Board appoint the Chair or Vice-Chair of Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ (UBCM) First Nations Relations Committee for 2015.

5.4 Appointment of a Metro Vancouver Observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal

Relations Committee Meetings for 2015 Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal & Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor That the GVRD Board appoint ____________________ as the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee as an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings for 2015.

5.5 Manager’s Report

Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal & Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report dated February 6, 2015, titled “Manager’s Report.”

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Aboriginal Relations Committee Terms of Reference 6.2 Aboriginal Relations Committee – 2015 Meeting Dates 6.3 Staff Comments on the Federal Document, “Renewing the Comprehensive Land

Claims Policy” Correspondence dated October 17, 2014 from Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Counsel to Mr. Bhar Sihota, Policy Analyst, Union of BC Municipalities.

ARC - 2

Aboriginal Relations Committee Agenda February 18, 2015

Agenda Page 3 of 3

6.4 Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy: Towards a Framework for Addressing Section 35 Aboriginal Rights. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. September 2014.

6.5 Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, “First Nation

Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia.” Correspondence dated November 19, 2014 from Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Counsel to Mr. Bhar Sihota, Policy Analyst, Union of BC Municipalities.

6.6 First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British

Columbia. Presented to the First Nations Tax Commission and the Union of BC Municipalities. Prepared by: Professor Robert Bish and Fiscal Realities Economists. 03 June 2014.

6.7 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations with Interests in the Region. January

2015. 7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below. That the Aboriginal Relations Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for February 18, 2015 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (m) as follows: “90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be

excluded from the meeting.” 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of February 18, 2015.

Membership: Steele, Barbara (C) – Surrey Read, Nicole (VC) – Maple Ridge Becker, John – Pitt Meadows Booth, Mary-Ann – West Vancouver Dhaliwal, Sav – Burnaby Drew, Ralph – Belcarra Fox, Charlie – Langley Township

Hanson, Jim – North Vancouver District Jackson, Lois – Delta Martin, Gayle – Langley City Meggs, Geoff – Vancouver Williams, Bryce – Tsawwassen Zarrillo, Bonita – Coquitlam

Non-Voting Members: Stobbart, Al – Fraser Valley Regional District Crompton, Jack – Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Lewis, Lorne – Sunshine Coast Regional District

ARC - 3

2.1

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ABORIGINAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Aboriginal Relations Committee held at 1:01 p.m. on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Vice Chair, Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Councillor Brent Asmundson, Coquitlam Councillor Mary-Ann Booth, West Vancouver (arrived at 1:08 p.m.) Director Steve Ferguson, Langley Township Director Lois Jackson, Delta (arrived at 1:04 p.m.) Councillor Dan Johnston, Burnaby Councillor Alan Nixon, North Vancouver District Director Barbara Steele, Surrey (arrived at 1:45 p.m.) Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows Director Bryce Williams, Tsawwassen (arrived at 1:15 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City OTHERS PRESENT: Director Ray Boucher, Fraser Valley Regional District* Director Rob Kirkham, Squamish-Lillooet Regional District* Director Lorne Lewis, Sunshine Coast Regional District* STAFF PRESENT: Ralph Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Counsel Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services,

Legal and Legislative Services

* Non-voting members from Squamish-Lillooet, Sunshine Coast and Fraser Valley Regional Districts do not constitute quorum.

ARC - 4

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 October 1, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 1, 2014 by

adding on-table replacement Item 5.1 Attachment 1 Legal and Legislative Services organizational chart; and

b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 April 30, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 30, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 1:04 p.m. Director Jackson arrived at the meeting. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2015 Business Plan and Budget – Aboriginal Relations Report dated September 22, 2014 from Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor, presenting the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget for consideration by the Aboriginal Relations Committee.

1:08 p.m. Councillor Booth arrived at the meeting.

Comments were offered about: • Exploring Community-to-Community Forum partnership opportunities • Including a performance indicator on First Nation relationship building • Challenges with measuring performance of meetings with the Province • A lack of resources to meaningfully develop relationships with First Nations

in Metro Vancouver

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Aboriginal Relations Committee held on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Page 2 of 6

ARC - 5

• Potential budget and resource implications arising from Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British Columbia decision

• The role of the Aboriginal Relations Committee and former Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee

1:15 p.m. Director Williams arrived at the meeting. In response to questions, members were informed about: • A proposed December workshop on local government servicing agreements

with Katzie First Nations • A decrease in external legal costs due to reallocation to another function • Efforts to partner with UBCM on Community-to-Community Forum events

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget, as presented in the report titled 2015 Business Plan and Budget – Aboriginal Relations, dated September 22, 2014, and forward them to the Board Budget Workshop on October 16, 2014 for consideration.

CARRIED 5.2 Communication of Aboriginal Relations and Treaty Negotiation Updates to

Local Governments Report dated August 25, 2014 from Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services, providing information on activities for communicating Aboriginal Relations and treaty negotiation updates to local governments. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report, dated August 25, 2014, titled Communication of Aboriginal Relations and Treaty Negotiation Updates to Local Governments.

CARRIED

5.3 Manager’s Report Report dated September 22, 2014 from Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor, updating the Aboriginal Relations Committee on the Aboriginal Relations Committee 2014 Work Plan, backgrounder on the William Decision, new representative from the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee to Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee, First Nations Financial Transparency Act (FNFTA), and the following conferences: International Municipal Lawyers Association – September 10-14, 2014 in Baltimore, MD; Environmental Managers Association Session on First Nations Engagement in BC – September 18, 2014 in Vancouver, BC and Critical Issues for Local Governments and First Nations – October 3, 2014 in Vancouver, BC.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Aboriginal Relations Committee held on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Page 3 of 6

ARC - 6

Members were shown a video clip from the Metro Vancouver and Katzie First Nation Community-to-Community Forum held on July 16, 2014 at the South Bonson Community Centre in Pitt Meadows.

1:45 p.m. Director Steele arrived at the meeting.

In response to questions, members were informed about the status of the Tsilhqot’in Nation vs. British Columbia decision and about staff attendance at conferences. Video presentation material is retained with the October 1, 2014 Aboriginal Relations Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report dated September 22, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report.”

CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Supporting Treaty Implementation – 2013/14 Operational Funding for TACs Correspondence dated June 25, 2014, from Peter Ronald, Programs Officer, Union of BC Municipalities, to Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee c/o Chair Moore and Board.

6.2 2014 Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee (FVARC) Appointment to Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee Correspondence dated June 9, 2014, from Barclay Pitkethly, Director of Regional Programs, Fraser Valley Regional District, to Mr. Ernie Daykin, Chair, Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee.

6.3 2014/15 (Spring) Regional Community to Community Forum – Funding

Approval Correspondence dated May 16, 2014 from Peter Ronald, Programs Officer, Union of BC Municipalities, to Chair Moore and Board, Metro Vancouver.

6.4 Katzie First Nation – Metro Vancouver Community to Community Forum Final

Report. July 16, 2014 Report submitted to UBCM on August 12, 2014. Aboriginal Relations. Legal and Legislative Services.

6.5 Completion of the 2014/15 (Spring) Community to Community Forum

Correspondence dated August 20, 2014 from Peter Ronald, Programs Officer, Union of BC Municipalities, addressed to Chair Moore and Board, Metro Vancouver.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Aboriginal Relations Committee held on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Page 4 of 6

ARC - 7

6.6 New Relationship: Lands and Resources and Economic Development Initiatives Second Quarter: 2014

6.7 New Relationship: Social Initiatives. Second Quarter: 2014 6.8 Matrix: New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008-2014 6.9 Brochure: “Critical Issues for Local Governments and First Nations”

Conference. October 3, 2014. SFU Harbour Centre 6.10 New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia from 2008-2013

Correspondence dated August 25, 2014 from Jeanette Sidhu-Scherer, Correspondence Unit, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, addressed to Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the following Information Items: 6.1 Supporting Treaty Implementation – 2013/14 Operational Funding for TACs 6.2 2014 Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee (FVARC) Appointment to

Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee 6.3 2014/15 (Spring) Regional Community to Community Forum – Funding Approval 6.4 Katzie First Nation – Metro Vancouver Community to Community Forum Final

Report. July 16, 2014 6.5 Completion of the 2014/15 (Spring) Community to Community Forum 6.6 New Relationship: Lands and Resources and Economic Development Initiatives

Second Quarter: 2014 6.7 New Relationship: Social Initiatives. Second Quarter: 2014 6.8 Matrix: New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008-2014 6.9 Brochure: Critical Issues for Local Governments and First Nations Conference

October 3, 2014. SFU Harbour Centre 6.10 New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia from 2008-2013

CARRIED 7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for October 1, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1) (i) and Section 90 (2) (b) as follows:

“90 (1) A part of a Committee meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Aboriginal Relations Committee held on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Page 5 of 6

ARC - 8

(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and

90 (2) A part of a Committee meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following:

(b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

CARRIED 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adjourn its regular meeting of October 1, 2014.

CARRIED (Time: 1:52 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Janis Knaupp, Ernie Daykin, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 10268604 FINAL

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Aboriginal Relations Committee held on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Page 6 of 6

ARC - 9

5.1 To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate

Solicitor Date: February 10, 2015 Meeting Date: February 18, 2015 Subject: 2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee Priorities and Work Plan RECOMMENDATION That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated February 10, 2015 titled “2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee Priorities and Work Plan.” PURPOSE To provide the Aboriginal Relations Committee with the priorities and work plan for the year 2015. BACKGROUND At its October 1, 2014 meeting, the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorsed the 2015 Business Plan(s) and Budget for Legal and Legislative Services which served as the basis the 2015 Budget approved by the Board on October 24, 2014. The Business Plan was used to develop the priorities in the Aboriginal Relations Committee’s work plan presented in this report. 2015 Work Plan The Aboriginal Relations Committee is the standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on policies, plans, programs, budgets and issues related to treaty negotiations and the broader Aboriginal Relations function. Key actions in the 2015 work plan for the Aboriginal Relations Committee are described below and are consistent with the committee’s Terms of Reference provided as Information Item 6.1 in this Agenda. • Appoint local government treaty table representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh

negotiation tables. • Appoint a representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee. • Appoint an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee. • Provide updates, as available, on federal and provincial legislative initiatives in relation to local

government interests (e.g. First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA), the Policy on Additions to Reserve and Reserve Creation, Bill S-8: The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, Aboriginal self-governance, Crown lease renewals, etc.).

• Liaise with UBCM First Nations Relations Committee (with updates as needed and when available).

• Participate in active treaty table meetings in the region as part of the provincial negotiating teams.

• Provide quarterly progress reports on treaty negotiations.

ARC - 10

• Update Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations. • Host an event involving local governments and First Nations’ elected leaders (e.g. a Community-

to-Community Forum). • Adopt and implement a corporate-wide First Nations’ communications/engagement process. • Host an event involving staff of First Nations and local government (e.g. to discuss servicing

agreements). • Review the 2016 Aboriginal Relations program budget. The 2015 Work Plan for the Aboriginal Relations Committee is provided in Attachment 1. This does not include all items brought before the Committee, but rather priorities previously determined by the Board and Committee. The Committee will be updated on the status of the actions and projects in this work plan at each meeting of the Aboriginal Relations Committee, under the Manager’s Report. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the work plan contained in the report dated

February 10, 2015 titled “2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee Priorities and Work Plan.” 2. That the Aboriginal Relations Committee provide alternate direction to staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The priorities in the 2015 Work Plan of the Aboriginal Relations Committee are consistent with the key actions included in the Business Plans and Budget approved by the Board on October 24, 2014. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The work plan presented in this report conveys the priorities for the Aboriginal Relations Committee in 2015 and is consistent with its terms of reference and the 2015 Budget approved by the Board. Staff recommends that Alternative 1 be adopted. Attachment: Aboriginal Relations Committee – 2015 Work Plan 10755258

ARC - 11

ATTACHMENT

Aboriginal Relations Committee 2015 Work Plan Report Date: February 2015 Priorities 1st Quarter Status Invited Presentation on Working Effectively with Aboriginal Peoples Complete Appoint local government treaty table representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh treaty tables

In Process

Appoint a representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee In Process Appoint an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee In Process Invite First Nations to attend or present at Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings in 2015

Pending

Provide updates, as and when available, on federal and provincial legislative initiatives in relation to local government interests (e.g. FNCIDA, Additions-to-Reserve, Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, Aboriginal Self-Governance, Crown lease renewals, etc.)

Complete

Liaise with UBCM First Nations Relations Committee (with updates as needed or when available)

Complete

Provide quarterly progress reports in treaty negotiations Complete Update Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations Complete 2nd Quarter Status Host an event involving local governments and First Nations’ elected leaders (e.g. a Community-to-Community Forum)

In Process

Provide updates, as and when available, on federal and provincial legislative initiatives in relation to local government interests (e.g. FNCIDA, Additions-to-Reserve, Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, Aboriginal Self-Governance, Crown lease renewals, etc.)

Pending

Liaise with UBCM First Nations Relations Committee (with updates as needed or when available)

Pending

Provide quarterly progress reports in treaty negotiations Pending 3rd Quarter Status Provide updates, as and when available, on federal and provincial legislative initiatives in relation to local government interests (e.g. FNCIDA, Additions-to-Reserve, Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, Aboriginal Self-Governance, Crown lease renewals, etc.)

Pending

Liaise with UBCM First Nations Relations Committee (with updates as needed or when available)

Pending

Provide quarterly progress reports in treaty negotiations Pending 4th Quarter Status Adopt and implement a corporate-wide First Nations’ communications and engagement process

In Process

Host an event involving staff of First Nations and local government (e.g. to discuss servicing agreements)

Pending

Review the 2016 Aboriginal Relations program budget Pending

ARC - 12

4th Quarter (continued) Status Provide updates, as and when available, on federal and provincial legislative initiatives in relation to local government interests (e.g. FNCIDA, Additions-to-Reserve, Bill S-8, The Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, Aboriginal Self-Governance, Crown lease renewals, etc.)

Pending

Liaise with UBCM First Nations Relations Committee (with updates as needed or when available)

Pending

Provide quarterly progress reports in treaty negotiations Pending Notes:

• The status of each of the above items represents progress made up to, and including, the date of the meeting taking place in that quarter.

ARC - 13

5.2 To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate

Solicitor Date: February 6, 2015 Meeting Date: February 18, 2015 Subject: Appointment of the 2015 Local Government Treaty Table Representatives to the

Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh Negotiations RECOMMENDATION

That the GVRD Board appoint: a) _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Katzie

negotiations for 2015. b) _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Tsleil-

Waututh negotiations for 2015. PURPOSE To nominate the local government treaty table representatives at the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh negotiations for 2015. BACKGROUND To ensure ongoing and effective local government representation in treaty negotiations, treaty table representatives for the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh negotiation tables need to be nominated for 2015. The 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Union of BC Municipalities and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (Attachment 1) was renewed at the September 2012 UBCM Convention in Victoria. The MOU recommits the parties to work together on matters related to First Nations, including a process for local government participation in the negotiation and implementation of treaties. Under the renewed MOU, local governments located within a specific First Nations’ Statement of Intent (SOI) area, can collectively determine how they wish to be organized to participate in active treaty negotiations and select table representatives to participate in the area treaty negotiations as part of the provincial negotiation team. Given the complexity of treaty issues and benefits of continuity and direct discussions with the Aboriginal Relations Committee, Metro Vancouver’s practice as established by the Board Chair is to have the treaty table representative be a member who is already serving on the Aboriginal Relations Committee and whose jurisdiction is potentially impacted by a First Nation’s SOI area (Attachments 2 and 3).

ARC - 14

From 2012 to 2014, these two active treaty tables were represented by the following jurisdictions:

Treaty Table Local Government Jurisdiction Katzie City of Surrey Tsleil-Waututh District of North Vancouver

Given the composition of the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee, only the following eight (8) local government jurisdictions, whose boundaries are located within the Katzie Statement of Intent (SOI) area (i.e. traditional territory), are eligible to represent local government interests at the Katzie treaty table:

Jurisdictions Eligible to Represent Local Government Interests at the Katzie Treaty Table Burnaby Coquitlam Delta Langley City Langley Township Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Surrey

At the treaty table, the Katzie First Nation has indicated a strong preference and need for continuity of representation at the treaty table and satisfaction with the current local government representative. At the Tsleil-Waututh treaty table, the former local government treaty table representative did not run for local government re-election; therefore, a new local government treaty table representative will need to be appointed. Only the following six (6) local government jurisdictions, whose boundaries are located within the Tsleil-Waututh Statement of Intent (SOI) area (i.e. traditional territory), are eligible to represent local government interests at the Tsleil-Waututh table:

Jurisdictions Eligible to Represent Local Government Interests at the Tsleil-Waututh Treaty Table Belcarra Burnaby Coquitlam North Vancouver District Vancouver West Vancouver

If there is only one Committee member from a local government jurisdiction potentially impacted by the respective First Nation(s) and particular table who is interested in becoming a local government treaty table representative to that particular table, then the Committee may wish to endorse that member for appointment by the Board.

ARC - 15

If, on the other hand, more than one Committee member from potentially impacted local government jurisdictions are nominated and wish to be considered for the role of treaty table representative at a particular treaty table (Attachment 4), then, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Metro Vancouver will facilitate the appointment process by sending correspondence to those jurisdictions affected by the respective Katzie (Attachment 5) or Tsleil-Waututh (Attachment 6) areas, with a list of the interested candidates from the Committee and asking the municipalities to select their preferred candidate. The preferred candidate endorsed by the municipalities must be a member of the committee and be one of the candidates nominated by a member of the Committee. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board appoint _________________ as the local government treaty table

representative to the Katzie negotiations for 2015, and _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Tsleil-Waututh negotiations for 2015.

2. That the Board facilitate a process for appointing local government treaty table representatives for 2015 by canvassing local governments affected by the respective Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh Statement of Intent areas.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board reappoints representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh tables, the financial implications are moderate. Approximately 20 meetings are held annually at each treaty table. Expenses incurred relate to honoraria and staff time to attend meetings. Some Tsleil-Waututh treaty table meetings are held in Victoria so additional expenses are incurred for travel and accommodation. The costs of representation at the treaty tables has been included in the 2015 budget for the Aboriginal Relations Committee. OTHER IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the terms of the MOU between BC and UBCM, and as per the requirements placed upon local governments under the Community Charter, confidential information/updates reported out at the treaty tables only appear in closed meetings of the Aboriginal Relations Committee and can only be reported out or shared with the respective municipal councils on an in-camera basis. In addition, a recommendation from the Aboriginal Relations Committee is required at each Committee meeting on whether the non-voting observers from the neighbouring regional districts will be able to observe the proceedings during those closed Committee meetings. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION To ensure ongoing and effective local government representation in treaty negotiations, treaty table representatives for the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh negotiation tables need to be nominated for 2015. Further, to ensure the continuity of representation at the treaty table and help Metro Vancouver foster relations with these First Nations, Alternative 1 is recommended: That the GVRD Board appoint _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Katzie negotiations for 2015, and _________________ as the local government treaty table representative to the Tsleil-Waututh negotiations for 2015.

ARC - 16

Attachments and References: 1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of British Columbia and Union of British

Columbia Municipalities on Local Government Participation and the New Relationship with First Nations, September 26, 2012

2. Statement of Intent (map): Traditional Territory Boundary, Katzie Indian Band 3. Statement of Intent (map): Traditional Territory Boundary, Tsleil-Waututh Nation 4. The Roles and Responsibilities of Table Representatives 5. Local Government Jurisdictions within the Katzie Statement of Intent Area 6. Local Government Jurisdictions within the Tsleil-Waututh Statement of Intent Area 10755347

ARC - 17

ATTACHMENT 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between

THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA anJ

THE UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MUNICIPALITIES

on

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH FIRST NATIONS

T his Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) replaces two previously signed MOUs and two supporting Protocol Agreements which dealt with local government

participation in treaty negotiations and other activities under the

Province's New Relationship with First Nations, and reflects the

spirit and intent of those commitments.

THE pARTIES:

The parties to this MOU are:

<> The Province ofBritish Columbia (the Province)

as represented by the Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliat ion (MARR); and

<> The Union ofBritish Columbia Municipalities

(UBCM) representing all municipalities and

regional distr icts ofBritish Columbia.

W HEREAS:

The Parties agree that court decisions have resulted in changes to the

way the Crown consults with First Nations with respect to decisions

made by the Crown that have the potential to impact Aboriginal

rights and tide.

The Parties acknowledge that the Province and B.C. First Nations'

organizations are working together to develop new government-to­

government relationships to improve the process of decision making

as it relates to land1 resources and economic development.

The Parties recognize that local government jurisdictions may

be affected by the negotiation ofland1 resource and economic

development agreements with First Nations.

The Parties accept that local government constitutes a unique and

special interest in the negotiation of a range of agreements with First

Nations including modern treaties and non-treaty land~ resource

and economic development arrangements.

The Parties acknowledge that local governments are developing

working relationships with First Nations neighbours and that

this MOU encourages local governments and First Nations to

communicate and inform each other about matters of mutual

interest.

THEREFORE:

This MOU reflects the development of the relationship between the

Parties in response to the evolution of the treaty process and progress

made since the New Relationship vision document was developed in

2005. It defines a renewed commitment by the Parties to:

o continue a process for local government participation

in the negotiation and implementation of t reaties;

<> consult and exchange information with local governments

on other agreements outside the B.C. treaty processj and

<> consult on matters of mutual interest including

those matters that will have a significant impact

on local government jurisdiction.

IONS AND

RECONCILIATION

FIRST NATIONS RELATIONS COMMI'ITEE,

UBCM

UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MUNICIPALITIES

DATE

ARC - 18

T OP ICS

·1he .Province W1ll share mformatlon1 consider local government

interests and seek advice on matters affecting local government

jurisdiction including but not limited to the following:

Land management and land use planning

' Land selection

.:- Dispute resolution

-¢ Property taxation

o Environmental assessment and protection

-> Local government access to resources for public

purposes and access to adjacent lands

.._, Servicing arrangements

~ Regulatory arrangements

..> Governmental relations

_, Economic development

CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION

SHARING P!UNCIPLES

The Parties agree to the following principles governing consultation

and information sharing:

~ flexibility for local government to identify and

represent their interests in a way that they consider

appropriate to their local circumstances;

~~ early notice to local government of a matter that

may affect local government juxisdiction;

_, sufficient information early on and reasonable time

for local government to document their interests

and views and to provide advice to provincial negotiators and/or provincial representatives;

o due consideration oflocal government

interests1 views and advice;

o a response fi:om provincial negotiators/representatives

on how local government advice was used; and

~ regular information exchange between the

Province and local government

DEFINITIONS

The following defi.rutions cover the types of agreements referred to

in thisMOU:

Treaty: a comprehensive agreement negotiated among B.C.1 Canada

and a First Nation under the B.C. Treaty Commission process that is

a full and formal expression of reconciliation between First Nations

and the Crown.

Treaty Related M easure (TRM): a temporary arrangement

negotiated by B.C., Canada and a First Nation at a negotiation table

that is tied direcdy to treaty topics under negotiation. They are cost­shared between Canada and the Province.

Incremental Treaty Agreement (ITA): a legally-binding, longer term arrangement negotiated at a treaty negotiation table.

An ITA permits the parties to conclude agreements on topics typi.e<:J.ly .. ddn:..>.>cd U1"'\dcr tJ.·C4t::y n cgotttltlOl"'\-' <U"'\d to unplcl'l"I.Cnt the

agreement in advance of a 1inal treaty.

Other Agreements: refers to land, resource or economic

development agreements negotiated between a First Nation and the Province outside the B.C. b·eaty process that have the potential to

impact local government .

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES RESPECTING

'TREATY NEGOTIATIONS, TREATY-RELATED

MEASURES, INCREMENTAL TREATY AGREEMENTS,

AND TREATY INTERIM MEASURES

The Province Structure: The ChiefNegotiator leads the provincial negotiating

team in all a5pects of the negotiations and provides direction to all team members .

Information: Provincial negotiators will, in a timely manner, provide their local government representative with table~specifi.c agendas, work plans1 documents for discussion and other relevant information.

Consultation: Provincial negotiators will consult and e..xchange information in a timely manner with a Treaty Advisory Committee (TAC) or alternate local government structure on issues considered

important by either the Province or the local government according

to the consultation principles stated in this MOU.

Side Tables: Where the local government and First Nation agree1

the provincial negotiators will undertake to establish a side table

or working group for local government and the First Nation to negotiate and come to agreement on issues related to the future local

government~ First Nation relationship. The provincial negotiators will give full and fair consideration to results produced and

agreements reached by these tables.

Low Activity Tables: Where the level of activity at a treaty table

is low, the provincial negotiators will keep local government

representatives informed of any developments at the table through regular information updates and exchanges.

FWlding: Subject to budgeting allocations1 the Province will fund local government representatives to participate at a treaty negotiation table if they are:

~ participating in Stage 4 or Stage 5 b·eaty negotiations;

o required to participate dlrecdywith First Nations in land) jurisdiction or servicing discussions; and

o required to participate directly in the negotiation of a b:eaty-related measure, treaty interim

measure or incremental treaty agreement.

Wtth respect to the operation ofTACs or alternate local government structures, the Province will consider predictable

annual funding, as required and on a case~by-case basis.

Local Government

Role: Local government representatives are members and respected advisors on provincial treaty negotiation teams until a negotiation is

concluded and the treaty takes effect.

ARC - 19

Treaty Implementation: Prior to the effective date, local government and the Province will discuss local government

involvement in treaty implementation and make every effort to come to an agreement that identifies the significant issues of interest to local government and how local government will be involved/

informed during the implementation of these issues.

On the effective date1 the First Nation and neighbouring local governments will deal directly with each other. Local governments and the First Nation will work together to develop and build their relationship.

Attendance: Local government representatives will have the opportunity to attend treaty-related discussions and negotiations

including main tables, side ta:bles1 working groups and bilateral meetings.

Interests: Local government representatives are responsible for

defining and representing their interests in matters related to negotiations and for sharing these interests and other relevant information with the provincial negotiating team.

Providing advice: Local government representatives will engage in discussions and contribute advice on all matters concerning the future local govemment-First Nation relationship.

Structure: Within the area defined by a First Nation's Statement of Intent, local governments will collectively determine how they

will be organized to participate in a negotiation - e.g. as a TAC or an alternate local government structure - and will advise the

appropriate provincial negotiator of their chosen structure as well as the primary contact(s) (e.g. Committee Chair).

Involvement: Based on their interests and the level of activity at the

~ecific treaty table, local governments may determine the level to which they wish to be involved ranging from receiving information to participation at meetings and providing advice.

Confiden tiality: Local government representatives who participate in TACs or alternate local government structures are subject to any

and all confidentiality rules and practices that apply to a negotiation.

They may, after consultation with the lead provincial negotiatoij share confidential information with their respective councils and regional district boards, other local governments or TACs1 and with UBCM on an in-camera basis.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

RESPECTING OTHER AGREEMENTS

The Province

The Province will initiate contact with a local government when:

o an agreement with a First Nation on a matter relating to land, resources or economic development will be negotiated; and

~ the outcome of negotiations will affect the local government's

jurisdiction, operations or provision of services.

The Province will consult and exchange information in a timely

manner with the local government according to the consultation and information sharing principles stated in this MOU.

The Province and the local government will jointly determine the level of the local government's involvement ranging from receiving information to participation at meetings and providing advice.

Local Government

Local governments will serve as re~ected advisors to the Province

in negotiations that affect their interests.

Based on their interests and the level of activity of a negotiation, local governments and the Province will jointly determine the level of involvement ranging from receiving information to participation

at meetings and providing advice.

Local governments are responsible for defining and sharing their interests and other relevant information with the Province, and will advise the Province how their interests may be addressed.

Local government representatives are subject to any and all confidentiality rules and practices that apply to a negotiation. They may, after consultation with the Province, share confidential

information with their re$ective councils and regional district boards1 other local governments, TACs or local government structures, and with UBCM on an in-camera basis.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN '!'HE

PROVINCE AND THE UBCM

The Province will share information w ith UBCM and/or a body designated by the UBCM on the Province's approaches to the

development of initiatives outside the treaty p rocess. The Parties will work together on identifying the appropriate avenues for this information sharing.

The Province will provide UBCM with:

~ a list of all concluded agreements with First Nations updated semi-annually; and

\) a current list of provincial government

contacts updated semi-annually.

UBCM will monitor the progress of provincial notification and consultation with local governments on relevant agreements with First Nations.

REVIEW

This MOU will be reviewed three years fi·om the date of signing unless the Parties jointly agree to an earlier review.

ARC - 20

0 2 4 6 8Kilometers

Statement of IntentTraditional Territory Boundary

Katzie Indian Band

Produced by theBC Treaty Commission

This map represents approximateboundary of the traditional territorydescribed in the First NationStatement of Intent. The boundary isfor illustrative purposes only, andmay be updated in the future.

±

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Delta

Surrey

Gibsons

Burnaby

Mission

Whistler

Squamish

Richmond

Lions Bay

Coquitlam

Vancouver

Chilliwack

Port Moody

White Rock

Abbotsford

Maple Ridge

Langley (City)

North Vancouver

New Westminster

Washington State

ATTACHMENT 2

ARC - 21

0 1 2 3 4Kilometers

Statement of IntentTraditional Territory Boundary

Tsleil-Waututh Nation

Produced by theBC Treaty Commission

This map represents approximateboundary of the traditional territorydescribed in the First NationStatement of Intent. The boundary isfor illustrative purposes only, andmay be updated in the future.

±

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Surrey

Gibsons

Burnaby

Squamish

Richmond

Lions Bay

CoquitlamVancouver

Port Moody

Maple Ridge

North Vancouver

New Westminster

ATTACHMENT 3

ARC - 22

The Roles and Responsibilities of Table Representatives

Provide information to the Aboriginal Relations Committee from the Treaty Table 1. Attend Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings, engage in

discussion, and record outcomes.

2. Provide regular verbal information reports on table activities.

3. Provide advice and commentary on emerging issues.

4. Complete and circulate issue tracking reports.

5. Provide regular written information reports and related documentation for circulation to the Aboriginal Relations Committee

6. Regularly forward original table documentation to keep the master record updated.

7. Forward technical and other information requests from the treaty table to the Aboriginal Relations Committee for action.

8. Develop a personal information records system for table specific documentation.

9. Adhere to all confidentiality requirements. Provide information from the Aboriginal Relations Committee to the Treaty Table (via BC negotiators) 1. Attend table meetings, engage in discussion, and record outcomes.

2. Keep informed on treaty issues and Aboriginal relations.

3. Represent regional and member local governments interests.

4. Provide advice and commentary from a community perspective on issues impacting

local government interests.

5. Report back on technical and other information requested by the treaty table.

6. Develop personal information records system for table specific documentation.

ATTACHMENT 4

ARC - 23

Local Government Jurisdictions within the Katzie Statement of Intent Area

Burnaby

Coquitlam

Delta

Metro Vancouver (Electoral Area A)

Langley City

Langley Township

Maple Ridge

New Westminster

Pitt Meadows

Port Coquitlam

Richmond

Surrey

White Rock

ATTACHMENT 5

ARC - 24

Local Government Jurisdictions within the Tsleil-Waututh Statement of Intent Area

Anmore

Belcarra

Burnaby

Coquitlam

Metro Vancouver (Electoral Area A)

New Westminster

North Vancouver City

North Vancouver District

Port Coquitlam

Port Moody

Vancouver

West Vancouver

ATTACHMENT 6

ARC - 25

5.3 To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate

Solicitor Date: January 23, 2015 Meeting Date: February 18, 2015 Subject: Appointment of Metro Vancouver’s 2015 Representative to the UBCM First Nations

Relations Committee RECOMMENDATION That the Board appoint the Chair or Vice-Chair of Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities’ (UBCM) First Nations Relations Committee for 2015. PURPOSE To appoint a Metro Vancouver representative to UBCM’s First Nations Relations Committee for 2015. BACKGROUND UBCM’s First Nations Relations Committee, comprising five elected representatives from across the Province, oversees all UBCM policy development work related to Aboriginal issues, including treaty negotiations, self-government and taxation. The Committee’s role is to focus on relationship-building between First Nations and local governments through best practices and initiatives such as the Community to Community Forum program. Metro Vancouver has had representation on the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee since 2012. Prior to 2012, the former Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) had appointed a representative on behalf of local governments in the Lower Mainland. In May 2012, the UBCM President conveyed the results of deliberations of the President’s Committee on the matter of the appointment by Metro Vancouver to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee. The following motion was put forward to the UBCM Executive and endorsed: “That the Executive approve the appointment of the Chair or Vice-Chair of Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee.” As a result of the above motion, only the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Aboriginal Relations Committee may be considered for appointment to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Board appoint the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Aboriginal Relations Committee as Metro

Vancouver’s representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee. 2. That the Board decline to appoint a representative as there is no requirement to appoint a

member to UBCM’s First Nations Relations Committee, and provide alternative direction to staff.

ARC - 26

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board appoints a representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee the financial implications are minimal; the only financial considerations are the members’ honoraria for attending approximately five or six meetings per year. On occasion, as meetings are held in Victoria, additional expenses may be incurred for travel and accommodation. Metro Vancouver staff does not attend UBCM First Nations Relations Committee meetings, and any assistance provided by staff in support of this initiative is minimal. The expected costs of representation has been included in the budget for the Aboriginal Relations Committee. If the Board declines to appoint a representative, Metro Vancouver will not have input into the Committee discussions that take place on matters relating to local governments and First Nations, such as servicing, provincial and federal legislation, treaty negotiations, and Aboriginal relations, and will not have the opportunity for contact with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation or Ministry staff on these important issues. OTHER IMPLICATIONS This appointment involves building relationships with other local governments in other regions of the Province that are also addressing local government-First Nations relations. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The appointment of a representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee will ensure that their inter-agency relations are sustained and that Metro Vancouver will have representation and input on discussions affecting local government-First Nations relations. Therefore, Alternative 1 is recommended. Attachments and References: N/A 10756962

ARC - 27

5.4 To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate

Solicitor Date: February 6, 2015 Meeting Date: February 18, 2015 Subject: Appointment of a Metro Vancouver Observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal

Relations Committee for 2015 RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board appoint ____________________ as the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee as an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings for 2015. PURPOSE To recommend that the Board appoint an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee (FVARC) meetings for 2015. BACKGROUND The FVARC currently participates in treaty negotiations at the Yale Nation, In-SHUCK-ch Nation, and Sto:lo Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association treaty tables. The seven Sto:lo communities currently in treaty negotiations are: Aitchelitz, Leq’a:mel, Popkum, Skawahlook, Skowkale, Tzeachten and Yakweakwioose. FVTAC is made up of elected officials, staff and observers who represent the municipalities of the City of Abbotsford, the City of Chilliwack, the District of Mission, the District of Kent, the District of Hope, the Village of Harrison Hot Springs, and the eight electoral areas of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD). A commissioner and staff person from the Cultus Lake Park Board are also appointed as observers. Metro Vancouver has had observer status since 2012. The Vice-Chair of the Aboriginal Relations Committee represented Metro Vancouver last year. FVARC and Metro Vancouver local governments have, since 2000, shared cross-observer representation at one another’s respective public and closed meetings through the former Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC), which ceased to operate in early 2012. Traditionally, because the Katzie Statement of Intent Area crosses into the Fraser Valley, the LMTAC local government representative at the Katzie treaty table was an observer to the FVARC meetings. The Tsleil-Waututh Statement of Intent Area also crosses Metro Vancouver’s boundary and into the FVRD. Although there is no requirement to share cross-observer status with FVARC, given that both the Tsleil-Waututh and Katzie Statement of Intent Areas include portions of the FVRD communities, that Sto:lo Xwexwilmexw Treaty Association’s land claims envelope the whole of the Metro Vancouver region, and that local governments in Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley share similar interests in

ARC - 28

treaty negotiations, there is value in having a member of the Aboriginal Relations Committee appointed as an observer at FVARC meetings in order to share information and have the opportunity to dialogue on issues of mutual interest to both regional districts. FVARC has had a representative observe Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings since 2012. In recent years, FVARC meetings have been held three or four times annually and take place at the regional district offices of the FVRD in Chilliwack, BC. ALTERNATIVES

1. That the GVRD Board appoint ____________________ as the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee as an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings for 2015.

2. That the Board decline to appoint an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee, and provide alternative direction to staff.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the Board appoints a member of the Aboriginal Relations Committee as an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings for 2015, the financial implications are minimal (i.e. the member’s honoraria for attending approximately three or four meetings per year). Metro Vancouver staff also participates in the FVARC meetings. The costs of attending the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings has been included in the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Committee budget. If the Board declines to appoint an observer, Metro Vancouver will not have representation or the opportunity to provide input into discussions of mutual interest that may affect Metro Vancouver and FVRD, such as matters relating to servicing, treaty negotiations, and Aboriginal Relations. OTHER IMPLICATIONS This appointment involves building relationships with other local governments within the neighbouring Fraser Valley Regional District that are also addressing local government-First Nations matters. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver local governments have benefitted from having shared cross-observer representation with local governments within the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee over the past 14 years. The relationship has proven useful for the opportunity to engage in dialogue and share information on land claims, such as Katzie, Tsleil-Waututh and Sto:lo, as well as other treaty negotiation and local government-First Nations relations issues. Alternative 1 is, therefore, recommended: That the GVRD Board appoint ____________________ as the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee as an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings for 2015. Attachments and References: N/A 10755260

ARC - 29

5.5

To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services / Corporate

Solicitor Date: February 6, 2015 Meeting date: February 18, 2015 Subject: Manager’s Report RECOMMENDATION That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report dated February 6, 2015, titled “Manager’s Report.” Metro Vancouver’s Submission re: the Revised Federal Policy on Comprehensive Land Claims On October 24, 2014, the Committee Chair and Metro Vancouver staff, along with UBCM representatives, met with the Government of Canada’s special federal representative, Douglas Eyford, and staff at the Richmond offices of UBCM to discuss the revised federal policy on Comprehensive Land Claims. Mr. Eyford is an independent representative who has been engaging with First Nations and other stakeholders as part of his research. His report will be released in early 2015. The recurring theme in the respective comments submitted by both UBCM and Metro Vancouver is that local governments are not third parties and need to be consulted by both the federal and provincial governments. A copy of Metro Vancouver’s submission to UBCM is attached as Information Item 6.3 in this Agenda. A copy of the report is attached as Information Item 6.4. Another topic that was highlighted by both UBCM and Metro Vancouver at the October 24th meeting was the importance of the Community-to-Community Forums in helping to establish or foster better relationships between local governments and First Nations. Community-to-Community Forum funding was received by UBCM from the federal government soon after this meeting. Metro Vancouver’s Submission re: the Report on “First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia” On November 19, 2014, Metro Vancouver staff responded to UBCM’s request to local governments for comments on the Profession Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, “First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia.” The report considers possible non-treaty First Nation participation opportunities within local government structures, including regional district membership. A copy of Metro Vancouver’s submission to UBCM is attached as Information Item 6.5 in this Agenda. A copy of the report is attached as Information Item 6.6.

ARC - 30

Updates on Other Federal Policy Documents The federal Additions to Reserve (ATR) process allows for the granting of reserve status to a parcel of land that is added to an existing reserve of a First Nation. In 2013, without soliciting local government feedback, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) released its draft ATR policy. Metro Vancouver responded by soliciting feedback from the Aboriginal Relations Committee and its technical group, the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee on Aboriginal Relations (MTAC), and conducted an analysis of the revised draft ATR policy. Metro Vancouver then worked in tandem with UBCM to facilitate testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada regarding the revised Additions to Reserve policy on December 2, 2013. UBCM staff reported in mid-January 2015 that there are no further updates regarding the draft revised federal policy on Additions-to-Reserve and Reserve Creation. On another federal policy, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act came into force in November 2013 and provides for the development of federal regulations governing the provision of drinking water, water quality standards and the disposal of wastewater in First Nations communities. The Act also establishes that federal regulations developed in this regard may incorporate provincial regulations governing drinking water and wastewater in First Nations communities. Prior to the Act coming into force, UBCM and Metro Vancouver presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (May 2013) to convey their concerns. In mid-January 2015, UBCM staff reported that regulations related to this Act are to be reviewed by the federal government on a region-by-region basis. British Columbia’s regulations will not be included in the first phase of the review. BC’s regulations will likely be reviewed during the second of three phases of the review process. Metro Vancouver Profile of First Nations with Interests in the Region An updated version of the publication, Metro Vancouver Profile of First Nations with Interests in the Region, is included as Information Item 6.7 in this Agenda. This version of the Profile is very similar to the 2014 edition and includes a few updates and some minor adjustments. The document was previously circulated to, and received comments from, First Nations included in the Profile. 10755456

ARC - 31

6.1

Aboriginal Relations Committee Terms of Reference

The Aboriginal Relations Committee is the standing committee of the Metro Vancouver Board that provides advice and recommendations on policies, plans, programs, budgets and issues related to treaty negotiations and the broader Aboriginal Relations function. Committee Responsibilities Within the scope of the Board Strategic Plan, First Nations Strategy, and Metro Vancouver Financial Plan, the Committee provides guidance and oversight to staff on the implementation of the annual work plans and business plans that govern the Aboriginal Relations service. Among its responsibilities, the Committee is responsible for:

• Understanding and providing advice on the implications for Metro Vancouver of First Nations’ land claims, interests, and rights and titles, as well as on the implications for Metro Vancouver of decisions taken by the courts, and positions or initiatives taken of other orders of government; and

• Initiating and engaging in programs and activities that strengthen relationships between Metro Vancouver and First Nations within the region, and between member municipalities and First Nations.

Over the course of its work, the Aboriginal Relations Committee may, from time to time, convene a pan-municipal discussion to address specific local issues. Committee Membership and Meetings The Chair, Vice Chair and members are appointed annually by the Chair of the Metro Vancouver Board. The Committee meets quarterly and holds special meetings as required. A quorum of 50% plus one of the Committee membership is required to conduct Committee business. Committee Management The Committee Chair, or in the absence of the Chair the Vice-Chair, is the chief spokesperson on matters of public interest within the Committee’s purview. For high profile issues the role of spokesperson rests with the Metro Vancouver Board Chair or Vice Chair. On technical matters or in cases where an initiative is still at the staff proposal level, the Chief Administrative Officer or a senior staff member is the appropriate chief spokesperson. Where necessary and practical, the Board Chair, Committee Chair and Chief Administrative Officer confer to determine the most appropriate representative to speak. The Chief Administrative Officer assigns a General Manager as Committee Manager for the Committee. The Committee Manager is responsible for coordinating agendas and serves as the principal point of contact for Committee members.

10595425 January 7, 2015 ARC - 32

6.2

Aboriginal Relations Committee – 2015 Meeting Dates

• Wednesday, February 18, 2015 @ 9am

• Wednesday, May 13, 2015 @ 9am

• Wednesday, July 22, 2015 @ 9am

• Wednesday, October 7, 2015 @ 9am

All meetings are scheduled to take place in the 2nd Floor Boardroom at Metro Vancouver Head Office, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC.

10756344 ARC - 33

~ metrovancouver ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

OCT 1 7 2014

Mr. Bhar Sihota, Policy Analyst Union of BC Municipalities 10551 Shellbridge Way #60, Richmond, BC V6X 2W9

Dear Mr. Sihota:

Legal & Legislative Services Tel. 604 436-6872 Fax 604 451-6112

File: AD-02-01-UBCM

Re: Staff Comments on the Federal Document, "Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy"

Further to your request of October 9, 2014, we submit for your consideration Metro Vancouver staff comments on the revised federal document, Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy. I note that due to the short deadline we have not had an opportunity to vet these comments through the Aboriginal Relations Committee or the Metro Vancouver Board.

1. Local governments need to be identified. In British Columbia, and particularly in the Lower Mainland, local government and First Nation lands (and potential lands) are immediately adjacent to each other with shared borders. Where land claims are resolved utilizing lands within the Lower Mainland, local governments and First Nations (and their respective residents and businesses), will be living side by side as neighbours. In this context, clear identification of neighbourhood issues such as planning, land use and servicing must be addressed.

In addition, governmental relations between local governments and First Nations must be addressed. Historically, every land claim includes, or is immediately followed by, some form of Aboriginal self-government. This will immediately and directly affect local governments as local issues are those which a First Nation already controls on its existing lands and wants to continue to control on its new lands.

The ramification of this proximity is felt most acutely at the local level. In light of this federal document, consideration should be given to the federal, provincial, local and First Nation governments engaging in a process aimed at clarifying and evaluating roles and responsibilities of all governmental authorities, including local governments. This could include summit forums for each jurisdiction that aim to identify the challenges and possible solutions arising in modern local government-First Nation relations and the roles and responsibilities of each authority. Further, given the legislative and jurisdictional barriers faced by local governments in providing utility and other local services to First Nations on federal Indian Reserve lands, the provincial and federal governments should consider if legislation empowering local government provides for the flexibility to design innovative arrangements to jointly deliver services to, and with, First Nation governments.

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC,Canada VSH 4G8 • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org

Greater Vancouver Regional D1strict • Greater Vancouver Water Distnct • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Dra1nage D1stnct • Metro Vancouver Hous1ng Corporation

6.3

ARC - 34

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Federal Document, "Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Polley"

Page 2 of 5

2. local governments are not third parties. A corollary to the first point is that the policy assumes local government as a third party. The federal, and to a lesser extent provincial, officials have adopted the practice of lumping together all groups which are affected by Aboriginal land claims, from tourist camp operators and mining companies to local governments, and treating them as one "third party" constituency. This narrow approach ignores the reality that local governments are the elected governments of their constituencies, and are not a special interest group. This approach can cause significant resentment at the local level, and that resentment can turn against the entire land claims/treaty negotiation process.

The problem is compounded when the provincial government claims that local governments do not need to play a role in land claims negotiations because the province is acting on their behalf, and then either ignores or denies local governments' concerns. Local government concerns and issues are implicitly woven into the resolution discussions and need to be resolved if Aboriginal and non­Aboriginal people are going to be able to live together in harmony in the same community. The negotiating table has been determined to be the venue to resolve them. At times, the provincial interests and local government interests do not align. Therefore, it would be ideal to have separate representation at the table to ensure local government interests are addressed at the respective treaty tables. The province should either be clearly representing local governments, or it should allow local governments to freely represent themselves by having a voice at the treaty tables.

3. Direct negotiations between local governments and First Nations should be promoted. Local government and First Nation discussions and negotiations frequently occur alongside the treaty negotiations. They are at times necessary to ensure the success of treaty table discussions and, as a result, direct negotiations between local governments and First Nations should be encouraged and supported. Such negotiations are not a substitute for federal/provincial/First Nation negotiations but they can be an important parallel process.

Both local governments and First Nations express a desire to have good working relationships. Direct negotiations on specific issues of mutual benefit or concern are an opportunity for First Nations and local governments to get to know each other and develop ways of working together for the future. Both the provincial and federal governments could create opportunities for such negotiations by continuing to provide resources for the Union of BC Municipalities to administer an ongoing Community to Community Forum program. In addition, the provincial and federal governments should seek out, encourage and provide resources for ad hoc joint initiatives between interested local governments and First Nations to form joint advisory committees that engage the respective communities on various priority issues (e.g. land use planning).

Solutions to jurisdictional and land use issues are often beyond the reach of many local and First Nation governments. Access to special advisors and funding would be helpful. In addition, the provincial and federal governments could assist local governments and First Nation governments in the preparation of various forms of agreements and protocols that facilitate positive relationships. Federal, provincial, local and First Nation agreements touching on local government and Aboriginal issues should be drafted in a way that facilitates positive relationships between local governments and First Nation governments.

10362351

ARC - 35

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Federal Document, "Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy''

Page 3 of 5

4. Taxation is a key concern. A significant issue of concern to local governments is tax loss. This concern is not related simply to the loss of tax revenue, but is related to concepts of fairness and equity within the non-Aboriginal community and, therefore, is linked to achieving successful reconciliation. Its importance should not be underestimated. Where good relationships between local governments and First Nations exist, the tax issue has been dealt with in a way that is acceptable to both sides. Where the tax issue remains outstanding, it acts as a barrier to the resolution of other issues. Again, taxation is an issue that requires the attention and assistance of the federal and provincial governments including guarantees of financial support or contribution to make local governments whole when settlements remove lands from a local government tax base.

5. Local agreements require effective enforcement mechanisms. Local governments are concerned with the enforcement of agreements which they make with First Nations. As mentioned in the revised document (page 16), comprehensive land claims agreements can address this problem by creating a dispute resolution mechanism for issues, such as money, which are of particular concern to other orders of government. Urban issues such as land use and environmental concerns are equally, if not more, important in light of the contiguity of local government and First Nation lands. It would be of assistance to local governments to have dispute resolution mechanisms for enforcement of local government/First Nation agreements included in settlements.

6. Incremental Treaty Agreements (ITA) should not be a replacement for treaties. Local governments recognize the role of tripartite Incremental Treaty Agreements (IT As) in assisting Aboriginal groups in developing capacity and providing additional certainty over a land base and resources. However, it is local government's concern that these agreements are often negotiated without the level of consultation that is required under the BC Treaty Process. The absence of a consultation process and opportunities for local government involvement and input in concluding such agreements poses a challenge for local communities. This may create situations in which public interests are not fully considered resulting in not only an undermining of the long term success of IT As but also permitting ongoing friction to continue and thus decreasing the possibility of achieving the desired reconciliation.

7. Local governments support early resolution of any issues of overlapping claims or shared territories. Local governments share Canada's commitment to facilitating discussions among First Nations to resolve any issue of overlapping claim areas or shared traditional territories arising from treaty negotiations. Local governments strongly support the policy direction stating that Aboriginal groups should resolve shared territory disputes between themselves. Local governments support the early resolution of shared territories between First Nations preferably as a condition precedent to the signing of an Agreement-in-Principle (AlP). Early resolution would serve to eliminate uncertainties related to land selection and streamline the negotiation process.

8. Certainty over lands and resources matters. In his report titled Final Report with Recommendations regarding the Possibility of Accelerating Negotiations with Common Table First Nations that are in the BC Treaty Process, and any Steps Required, Jim Lornie points out that "treaty outcomes need to be considered as good, or better, than non-treaty outcomes if they are to remain a priority for First Nations in the process" (pg. 14). However, changes to federal and provincial policies and legislation related to Aboriginal policy have provided First Nations in BC with greater self-government, taxation and land management powers. As a result, some First Nations may have concluded that their

10362351

ARC - 36

Union of BC Municipalities

Staff Comments on the Federal Document, "Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy"

Page 4 of 5

participation in such non-treaty initiatives are of greater benefit to their communities than negotiating treaties.

Local governments fully support the primary goal of the BC Treaty Process of achieving certainty. Certainty pertaining to ownership and use of lands and resources, as well as predictability for development and growth, are some of the main benefits of modern-day treaties in the province. Local governments also support the need for Final Agreements that provide certainty with respect to Aboriginal rights and title. Outstanding Aboriginal rights and title issues are of concern to local governments as they impact local government land use planning decisions, land acquisitions, and investment in local communities. Therefore, the timely resolution of these outstanding matters at treaty tables is key to the ongoing success of local communities, be they local governments or First Nations.

9. The scope of mandates of the federal treaty negotiators needs to be expanded. Local governments are strong supporters of the timely and effective conclusion of successful treaty negotiations in BC and, in particular, the Metro Vancouver region. Federal negotiators' mandates remain too narrow and consequently they are not able to engage in substantive issues without needing to return to Ottawa to revisit their mandates. In order to advance treaty negotiations, Canada should take steps to increase the flexibility and authority of federal negotiators to conclude treaties.

10. The Federal government's involvement in treaty implementation must be more substantive. Canada should place more emphasis on assisting treaty First Nations with successful treaty implementation in their communities. The experiences of Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth are indicative of the importance of implementation funding for treaty First Nations to address specific issues prior to, and after, the effective date of treaties. During Stage 6 of the BC Treaty Process, local governments are often asked to be involved in various intergovernmental initiatives, including issues related to local services, reaching agreement for such services and potential First Nation representation on the regional district board. It was at this stage of the Tsawwassen treaty negotiations that Metro Vancouver and the Corporation of Delta became fully engaged in discussions involving the province and the First Nation. The timelines for completing these negotiations were too short and left some issues unresolved. In addition, significant human and financial resources were expended in the negotiation of servicing agreements as well as in assisting the Tsawwassen First Nation in building its intergovernmental relations capacity.

11. Communication to, and with, local governments matters. The interim policy states that federal negotiators will maintain appropriate and effective communication with those third parties whose interests are directly connected to issues under negotiations. However, despite this commitment, Metro Vancouver only learned about the review process through UBCM. The federal government should inform local governments about the opportunity to provide input in a timely fashion when it decides to substantially modify its negotiation mandates.

The above local government comments are respectfully submitted with the understanding that any significant changes to federal negotiation mandates will require a further analysis by local governments.

10362351

ARC - 37

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Federal Document, "Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy"

Page 5 of 5

Please feel free to contact Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations (tel: 604-432-6388; marino.piombini@metrovancouver.org) or Agnes Rosicki, Senior Policy Analyst, Aboriginal Relations (tel: 604-451-6175; agnes.rosicki@metrovancouver.org) at your convenience if you have any questions regarding these comments or if you wish to discuss further.

Sincerely,

Ralph G. Hildebrand General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Solicitor Metro Vancouver

RGH/mp/ar/th

10362351

ARC - 38

1

Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy:

Towards a Framework for

Addressing Section 35 Aboriginal Rights

- September 2014 -

Once finalized, this renewed Policy replaces and supersedes all previous versions of Canada’s Comprehensive Land Claims Policy.

6.4

ARC - 39

INTERIMPOLICY

For information regarding reproduction rights, please contact Public Works and Government Services Canada at: 613-996-6886 or at: droitdauteur.copyright@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca 1-800-567-9604 TTY only 1-866-553-0554 QS-6342-000-EE-A1 Catalogue: R3-217/2014E-PDF ISBN : 978-1-100-24798-4 © Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 2014

ARC - 40

INTERIMPOLICY

Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy

A Note on the Text: Aboriginal people represent the fastest-growing segment of the Canadian population, with close to 50 per cent of the Aboriginal population under the age of 25. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of working in partnership to create new opportunities for long-term success and economic prosperity and is committed to moving forward with Aboriginal partners across the country to achieve concrete and lasting results. The Government of Canada acknowledges that these opportunities cannot be unlocked without appropriately addressing Aboriginal and treaty rights, which are recognized and affirmed under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is in our collective interest to balance the rights and interests of all Canadians and enable Aboriginal communities to access development opportunities that create jobs, economic growth and prosperity. To this end, the Government of Canada is developing a new framework for addressing Section 35 Aboriginal rights. This framework will be developed incrementally and through dialogue with partners. As a first step, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has appointed Douglas Eyford as the Ministerial Special Representative to lead engagement with Aboriginal groups to further renew and reform the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy. This policy was first established in 1973 and the last published update was in 1986. Aboriginal groups have long called for this policy to be revisited and the Government of Canada is answering that call. To start this dialogue, the Government of Canada is releasing Renewing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy: Towards a Framework for Addressing Section 35 Aboriginal Rights. This interim policy has been released as a starting point for discussions with partners and outlines the Government of Canada’s current approach to the negotiation of treaties, including the developments that have occurred since the publication of the last policy in 1986. This interim policy also includes changes in response to previous engagements and the 2013 Eyford Report, as well as the Principles Respecting the Recognition and Reconciliation of Section 35 Rights that were jointly developed by the Crown and First Nation leaders, with the support of the Assembly of First Nations, through the Senior Oversight Committee on Comprehensive Claims. This interim policy is not intended to be comprehensive in nature, exclusive of other potential subjects or representative of a final policy document. Rather it should be taken as an interim policy setting out the Government of Canada’s current position at a high level as a starting point for discussions with partners. This will allow for a more informed discussion on what should be included in this important first component of the new framework for addressing Section 35 Aboriginal rights. The Government of Canada hopes that this will be the basis for a respectful and constructive dialogue on how we can work in partnership to renew the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians.

ARC - 41

INTERIMPOLICY

The Government of Canada is interested in hearing from you. Your views will help finalize Canada’s renewed policy approach on comprehensive land claims. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has appointed Douglas Eyford to lead engagement with Aboriginal groups, other key stakeholders and interested parties based on this document. Engagement will take place through various means, including in-person meetings and by email at article35-section35@aadnc-aandc.gc.ca as well as through online tools http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/section35. More information about these opportunities for providing feedback is available at the end of this document. Please visit the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website for more details.

ARC - 42

INTERIMPOLICY

Table of Contents Foreword ..................................................................................................................................................... 6  SECTION 1: OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 10 Objectives of Negotiations ....................................................................................................................... 10  SECTION 2: SCOPE OF NEGOTIATIONS ......................................................................................... 11 Lands and Resources Treaty Negotiations ............................................................................................. 11   a) Certainty........................................................................................................................................... 11   b) Certainty with Respect to Non-Land-Related rights ........................................................................ 12   c) Incremental Approaches to Treaty Negotiations ............................................................................. 12   d) Lands ............................................................................................................................................... 12   e) Treaty Settlement Lands .................................................................................................................. 12   f) Shared Territories and Overlapping Claims ..................................................................................... 13   g) Trans-Boundary Claims ................................................................................................................... 13   h) Offshore Areas ................................................................................................................................. 13   i) Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................. 14   j) Subsurface Rights ............................................................................................................................. 14   k) Resource Revenue Sharing .............................................................................................................. 14   l) Environmental Management............................................................................................................. 15   m) Capital Transfer .............................................................................................................................. 15   n) Management of Settlement Assets ................................................................................................... 15   o) Programs .......................................................................................................................................... 15   p) Tax Matters ...................................................................................................................................... 16   q) Beneficiaries to the Agreement ....................................................................................................... 16   r) Dispute Resolution ........................................................................................................................... 16  Self-Government Negotiations ................................................................................................................ 16  Negotiation of Non-Treaty Agreements .................................................................................................. 17  Aggregation of Aboriginal Groups ......................................................................................................... 17  Public and Third-Party Interests ............................................................................................................ 17  SECTION 3 – TREATY NEGOTIATIONS PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES ............................ 18 The Process for Treaty Negotiations Outside of British Columbia ..................................................... 18 The British Columbia Treaty Process .................................................................................................... 19  Implementation ......................................................................................................................................... 20  Federal Steering Committee .................................................................................................................... 20  Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 

ARC - 43

INTERIMPOLICY

6 NCR#6950313 - v1

Foreword

Section 35 Aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed by the Constitution Act, 1982. Addressing Aboriginal rights through negotiation is key to advancing reconciliation with Aboriginal people in Canada. Negotiations lead to positive solutions that balance the rights and interests of all Canadians and provide Aboriginal communities with access to new economic development opportunities that create jobs and economic growth. The Government of Canada is developing a renewed policy framework to provide more flexible options and opportunities to address Aboriginal rights and interests through dialogue with partners and to update its 30 year old Comprehensive Land Claims Policy. This renewed policy will include tools to advance reconciliation in both the short and long term, so that Aboriginal communities can access the economic benefits that meet their immediate needs as well as those of future generations. Reconciliation promotes a secure climate for economic and resource development that can benefit all Canadians and balances Aboriginal rights with broader societal interests. In 1973, the first federal policy was announced that set out how the government planned to negotiate and settle Aboriginal rights and title claims (also known as comprehensive land claims or “modern treaties”) with Aboriginal people. The policy, which outlines Canada’s approach to the negotiation of comprehensive land claims or treaties with Aboriginal groups and provincial/territorial governments, was clarified with the publication of In All Fairness: A Native Claims Policy – Comprehensive Claims (1981) and reaffirmed in 1986, with the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (1986). Canada’s policy approach to treaty negotiations has evolved significantly since that time through discussions with Aboriginal groups and provincial/territorial partners at negotiation tables and as a result of various related court decisions. This interim document outlines Canada’s approach to the negotiation of treaties, reflecting the significant changes that have occurred since the publication of the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy (1986). It is not intended to reflect all the matters that have been incorporated in the more than 26 modern treaties concluded since 1975. However, these agreements illustrate the flexibility and evolution in Canada’s policy approach to comprehensive land claim negotiations. Canada’s renewal of its policy on comprehensive land claims negotiations and development of this document is guided by the principles articulated below. Principles respecting the recognition and reconciliation of Section 35 rights The Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes and affirms the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by Section 35(1) are best understood as, firstly, the means by which the Constitution recognizes the fact that prior to the arrival of Europeans in North America the land was already occupied by distinctive

ARC - 44

INTERIMPOLICY

7 NCR#6950313 - v1

Aboriginal societies, and as, secondly, the means by which that prior occupation is reconciled with the assertion of Crown sovereignty over Canadian territory. The content of Aboriginal rights must be directed at fulfiling both of these purposes.1 This provides the constitutional framework for reconciling the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown which requires processes for achieving reconciliation. Accordingly, Canada acknowledges the importance of ensuring that its relationship with Aboriginal peoples is based on mutual recognition and respect having regard to the following principles of reconciliation that flow from Section 35. 1. Canada recognizes that reconciliation is a fundamental objective of Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Reconciliation is an ongoing process through which Aboriginal peoples and the Crown work cooperatively to establish and maintain a mutually respectful framework for living together in Canada with a view to fostering strong, healthy and sustainable Aboriginal communities. Reconciliation involves reconciling the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown and respectfully balancing Aboriginal rights with broader societal interests. Reconciliation requires compromise and good faith by all parties. Reconciliation frames the Crown’s actions in relation to Section 35 rights and informs the Crown’s broader relationship with Aboriginal peoples. Canada’s approach to reconciliation is informed by legal principles articulated by the courts and by negotiation and dialogue with Aboriginal peoples and provincial and territorial governments. 2. Canada recognizes that Aboriginal peoples have existing Section 35 rights and it is on this basis that reconciliation processes occur. Section 35 rights include both Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title and treaty rights. The Courts have stated that there is a spectrum of Aboriginal rights and specific legal tests for proof of Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title. The Government of Canada recognizes that the inherent right of self-government is an existing Aboriginal right within the meaning of Section 35. 3. Canada recognizes that the reconciliation of Section 35 rights is not limited to comprehensive modern treaties, but may include other forms of agreements and constructive arrangements, without the need for extinguishment. In areas of federal jurisdiction, Canada recognizes that the use of reconciliation processes could lead to modern treaty arrangements or other constructive arrangements including, but not limited to, non-treaty arrangements, contracts, legislation, memoranda of understanding and consultation and accommodation processes.

1 R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 (para 43).

ARC - 45

INTERIMPOLICY

8 NCR#6950313 - v1

Through negotiations, with give-and-take on all sides, modern treaties and other constructive arrangements can provide predictability and clarity for Aboriginal peoples and governments regarding their respective rights to ownership, use and management of lands and resources, as well as predictability and clarity for the exercise of Aboriginal self-government within the Canadian federation. 4. Canada recognizes that the honour of the Crown is a guiding principle for the conduct of the federal Crown in all federal processes for achieving reconciliation with respect to Section 35 rights. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of upholding the honour of the Crown, which requires Canada and its departments, agencies and officials to act with honour, integrity and fairness in all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples. The honour of the Crown gives rise to different duties in different circumstances. 5. Canada recognizes that the honour of the Crown gives rise to the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate when the Crown contemplates conduct that may adversely affect potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights. Canada has established guidelines for federal officials to fulfill the duty to consult. The Crown’s efforts to consult and where appropriate accommodate are to be consistent with the overriding objective of reconciliation. 6. Canada recognizes the importance of implementing modern treaties in a manner which upholds the honour of the Crown. Reconciliation requires that modern treaty provisions are to be interpreted in a reasonable and purposive manner and in accordance with the principles enunciated by the courts in order to find the common intention of the parties, and with due regard for terms negotiated by the parties. Federal departments and agencies need to coordinate their activities to implement treaties in a timely and diligent manner. 7. Canada recognizes that reconciliation requires justification for any infringement of Section 35 rights. Canada acknowledges that any infringement of Aboriginal rights requires a justification in accordance with standards established by the Canadian courts and must be attained in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown and the objective of reconciliation. 8. Canada recognizes that reconciliation can lead to economic prosperity. Reconciliation promotes a secure climate for economic and resource development that can benefit all Canadians and balances Aboriginal rights with broader societal interests. Reconciliation arrangements can enable Aboriginal peoples to have fair and ongoing access to

ARC - 46

INTERIMPOLICY

9 NCR#6950313 - v1

lands and resources to support their traditional economies and to share in the wealth generated from those lands and resources as part of the broader Canadian economy. 9. Canada recognizes the importance of working jointly with Aboriginal groups to identify timely and effective processes for the negotiation of modern treaties and other constructive arrangements that address Section 35 rights. Modern treaties have been and remain the primary means through which Aboriginal peoples and the Crown establish mutually agreed-upon frameworks for reconciliation. However, parties to modern treaty negotiations may have differing views on the nature, scope and location of Aboriginal rights in any particular context. Modern treaties can provide an enduring framework for ongoing relationships that are constitutionally protected. During the course of modern treaty negotiations, other constructive arrangements may be considered, including but not limited to, interim measures, treaty-related measures and incremental treaty arrangements, which promote cooperative relations, Aboriginal capacity for modern treaty implementation and predictability and clarity in relation to land and resource management. It is recognized that there are differences as to how modern treaty negotiations may be conducted across Canada, accounting for regional diversity, Aboriginal perspectives and the interests of provincial and territorial governments. 10. Canada recognizes that reconciliation is an ongoing process that occurs in the context of evolving Crown-Aboriginal relationships. Canada recognizes that reconciliation processes including processes for negotiation and implementation of treaties, non-treaty agreements and other constructive arrangements will need to adapt over time in the context of evolving Crown-Aboriginal relationships. Modern treaties should be capable of evolution and provide predictability for the future as to how provisions may be changed and in what circumstances. Matters that must be adaptable to change may be set out in companion non-treaty agreements.

ARC - 47

INTERIMPOLICY

10 NCR#6950313 - v1

SECTION 1: OVERVIEW

Objectives of Negotiations

Canada remains committed to working together through negotiations to address Section 35 Aboriginal rights with the goal of achieving fair and equitable agreements and an enduring reconciliation of rights and interests. Treaties remain the most comprehensive arrangements that can address Section 35 Aboriginal rights. Treaties establish a mutually agreed-upon and enduring framework for reconciliation and ongoing relationships between the Crown and Aboriginal people. The rights set out in treaties are precise and constitutionally protected. As a result:

treaties provide lasting certainty regarding the parties’ respective rights to ownership, use and management of lands and resources and other rights addressed in treaties, through a fair and enduring settlement of Aboriginal rights claims; and

self-government arrangements in treaties empower Aboriginal communities to govern their own affairs in a manner which provides predictability and clarity for intergovernmental relations and the application of laws.

Canada acknowledges that not all Aboriginal groups are able to or interested in negotiating a treaty. Reconciliation may include other forms of agreements and arrangements. Examples of arrangements with groups outside of the treaty negotiation process can include consultation protocols, fishery program arrangements, as well as other arrangements related to Section 35 Aboriginal rights. These arrangements can be an effective way to address Section 35 rights in advance of a treaty or as an alternative to a treaty. Agreements intended to address Section 35 Aboriginal rights will be negotiated within the framework of the Canadian Constitution, and will confirm the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Aboriginal governments. Such agreements must be equitable to Aboriginal people and all Canadians. The participation of provincial/territorial governments in the negotiation of treaties, self-government arrangements and/or non-treaty arrangements, in areas that fall within their jurisdiction is essential to any of these negotiations. Section 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed in Section 35 “are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.” This guarantee is respected by Canada in both the negotiation and implementation of treaties, self-government arrangements and/or non-treaty arrangements. The general public interest and third-party interests will be respected in the negotiation of any agreements/arrangements and agreements will balance the rights and interests of all.

ARC - 48

INTERIMPOLICY

11 NCR#6950313 - v1

SECTION 2: SCOPE OF NEGOTIATIONS

Lands and Resources Treaty Negotiations

Negotiated treaties that comprehensively address land and resources may include the following subject matters as part of the final agreement: a) Certainty b) Certainty with respect to Non-Land-Related rights c) Incremental Approaches to Treaty Negotiations d) Lands e) Treaty Settlement Lands f) Shared Territories and Overlapping Claims g) Trans-Boundary Claims h) Offshore Areas i) Wildlife j) Subsurface Rights k) Resource Revenue Sharing l) Environmental Management m) Capital Transfer n) Management of Settlement Assets o) Programs p) Tax Matters q) Beneficiaries to the Agreement r) Dispute Resolution

a) Certainty

The concept of certainty over lands and resources is central to the purpose of treaty negotiations, which provides a respectful framework for reconciliation. The parties involved in treaty negotiations often have different views and perspectives about the location, nature and extent of the existing Section 35 rights that a specific Aboriginal group holds and can exercise. Canada seeks to achieve certainty over unresolved Aboriginal rights claims, in relation to land and resources and other rights addressed in the treaty by negotiating agreements that provide for a respectful reconciliation of the rights of the Aboriginal people with the rights of other Canadians. The better the job that negotiators do in comprehensively setting out the terms of a new relationship based on the clearly defined rights and obligations of each party, the greater the certainty for future generations. This reconciliation respects the continuation of existing Section 35 Aboriginal rights and their coexistence with new treaty rights post treaty, in a legally effective manner that supports the

ARC - 49

INTERIMPOLICY

12 NCR#6950313 - v1

parties’ ability to rely on the negotiated agreement. To this end, a key item negotiated in treaty negotiations is the certainty or legal reconciliation technique. This legal technique reconciles the coexistence of existing Section 35 Aboriginal rights with treaty rights by enabling the continuation of the group’s existing Section 35 Aboriginal rights while ensuring that, to the extent the continuing rights are inconsistent with the treaty, they cannot be used to undermine the agreement of the parties. Treaties will include clear processes for the amendment of these agreements, providing predictability for the future as to how the applicable provisions may be changed and in what circumstances.

b) Certainty with Respect to Non-Land-Related rights

In addition to provisions dealing with lands and resources, treaties can also include self-government and other provisions, which may cover a range of non land related rights, such as jurisdiction over matters internal and integral to the Aboriginal community (ie. education) as well as cultural or other matters. Canada seeks certainty over non-land-related rights in the treaty. Canada supports options for achieving certainty with respect to non-land-related Aboriginal rights that are not addressed in the treaty through a process for bringing additional non land related rights into the treaty (where the parties agree).

c) Incremental Approaches to Treaty Negotiations

Incremental approaches for addressing Section 35 rights provide a tool for building momentum towards completing a treaty or for addressing the interests of the parties related to Section 35 rights in situations where the conclusion of a comprehensive treaty is far off. Canada may enter into incremental treaty agreements on a tripartite basis, with the province/territory and the Aboriginal group, or on a bilateral basis, with the Aboriginal group, in areas of federal interest.

Incremental approaches can: address Aboriginal interests while negotiations are ongoing; promote cooperative relations during treaty negotiations before a final agreement is reached; remove barriers to progress in negotiations; provide for the implementation of certain negotiated elements of a treaty in advance of a final, comprehensive treaty agreement and help prepare Aboriginal parties to implement treaties. These agreements can be considered at any stage of the broader treaty negotiations.

d) Lands

Treaties will clearly identify the geographic area, outside of treaty settlement lands, where treaty rights are exercisable.

e) Treaty Settlement Lands

Treaty settlement lands selected by Aboriginal parties for their continuing use should be asserted traditional lands that are currently used or occupied. Treaties may recognize that the ownership

ARC - 50

INTERIMPOLICY

13 NCR#6950313 - v1

of treaty settlement lands is linked to the Aboriginal party’s historic presence within their asserted traditional territory. Treaties will provide Aboriginal parties with secure title to treaty settlement lands. Treaties will include protections limiting expropriation of treaty settlement lands or seizure of treaty settlement lands. Treaty settlement lands give the Aboriginal group the ability to fully realize the economic potential of the land if they choose. Agreements will provide for public access to selected treaty settlement lands and for right-of-way for necessary public purposes. Access rights pertaining to transportation routes in and through the settlement area must also be provided for. Self-government treaty provisions set out the jurisdiction of Aboriginal governments over treaty settlement lands and their citizens and provide clarity with respect to the application of Aboriginal, federal and provincial or territorial laws on the settlement lands.

f) Shared Territories and Overlapping Claims

Shared territory and overlap issues are situations in which more than one Aboriginal group has potential or established Aboriginal or treaty rights in the same geographical area.

If left unresolved, shared territory and overlap issues can harm both the process of reconciliation between Canada and Aboriginal groups and the relationships among Aboriginal groups. The resolution of these overlaps is a key interest for all parties. Aboriginal groups are best placed to resolve shared territory and overlap disputes between themselves. Where there are competing claims to the same geographical area, Canada may consider options in advance of final treaty which support the reconciliation of section 35 rights and encourage Aboriginal groups to resolve the dispute. Canada continues to support Aboriginal groups’ efforts to resolve shared territory disputes. Throughout the treaty negotiation process, Canada will consult with Aboriginal groups where there may be potential adverse impacts on asserted or established section 35 rights by a treaty.

g) Trans-Boundary Claims

Where an Aboriginal group currently utilizes resources, in a province or territory, other than that in which its communities are located, the range of benefits available to the group outside its province or territory of residence will be determined by negotiation with the province or territory involved and consultation with any other Aboriginal groups with shared territory or overlapping claims.

h) Offshore Areas

In many cases, the areas traditionally used by Aboriginal groups to pursue their way of life include offshore areas. In such cases, negotiations concerning harvesting rights in offshore areas will be conducted, to the extent possible, in accordance with the same principles as those which

ARC - 51

INTERIMPOLICY

14 NCR#6950313 - v1

apply to lands. Participation in environmental management regimes and resource revenue-sharing arrangements may also be negotiated with respect to offshore areas.

i) Wildlife

The continuing economic, social and cultural importance of hunting, fishing and trapping for many Aboriginal communities is recognized by the federal government. Accordingly, agreements may provide for preferential wildlife harvesting rights for beneficiaries. There may be exclusive harvesting rights exercised by beneficiaries on selected lands, or preferential rights for particular species throughout the settlement area or within specified parts of the settlement area. In all cases, agreements will clearly define terms by which beneficiaries will have access to wildlife resources. Unless otherwise provided for in agreements, laws of general application respecting hunting, fishing and trapping activities, including public safety and conservation measures, will apply to beneficiaries.

j) Subsurface Rights

Subsurface resources fall within either federal or provincial jurisdiction. In areas of federal jurisdiction, subsurface rights on some federal Crown lands and on treaty settlement lands held by beneficiaries may be provided through agreements. Aboriginal ownership of subsurface rights close to their communities, or in critical wildlife habitat areas, may serve as a way to avoid land-use conflict in key areas. Such subsurface rights may also, in appropriate circumstances, provide the beneficiaries of the agreement with the opportunity and incentives to participate in and benefit from resource development. Holders of subsurface rights must have access to settlement lands, where necessary, for the exploration, development and production of resources. The exercise of such rights will be subject to fair compensation as determined through timely negotiations or by arbitration.

k) Resource Revenue Sharing

Where the federal government has responsibility with respect to natural resources, it is prepared to negotiate resource revenue-sharing arrangements with Aboriginal groups. Such arrangements would provide a percentage of any federal royalties derived from the extraction of resources in a settlement area, including offshore areas. Where the federal government has responsibility, resource revenue-sharing arrangements will not provide resource ownership rights and will not result in the establishment of joint management boards to manage the subsurface and subsea resources. In addition, the federal government will maintain responsibility for resource revenue mechanisms and must maintain its ability to adjust the fiscal regime.

ARC - 52

INTERIMPOLICY

15 NCR#6950313 - v1

Resource revenue sharing may be subject to limitations either by:

an absolute dollar; or a time cap of not less than 50 years from the first payment of the royalty share (which

arrangement will be renegotiable); or a reducing percentage of federal royalties generated, if any.

Any negotiations or arrangements between the federal and territorial governments regarding possible resource revenue sharing must respect any arrangements made in this regard through agreements. The federal government will consult affected Aboriginal groups regarding the implications for unresolved claims of any proposed federal-territorial arrangements on resource revenues.

l) Environmental Management

Treaties will recognize particular Aboriginal interests in relation to environmental issues particularly as these issues relate to wildlife management and the use of water and land. Provision for Aboriginal input on this matter may be afforded through membership on advisory committees, boards and similar bodies or through participation in government bodies that have decision-making powers. Such arrangements must recognize that the government has an overriding obligation to protect the interests of all users, to ensure resource conservation, to respect international agreements and to manage renewable resources within its jurisdiction.

m) Capital Transfer

The monetary component of an agreement may comprise various forms of capital transfers, including cash, resource revenue sharing, or government bonds. The amount will be clearly defined in the treaty. The amount of the capital transfer may be adjusted depending upon the other arrangements negotiated in treaties. For example, the amount of the capital transfer may be reduced in accordance with arrangements concerning resource revenue sharing. Outstanding debts owed by the Aboriginal group to the federal Crown will be deducted from final settlements.

n) Management of Settlement Assets

Aboriginal governments and corporate structures established in treaties must be designed by Aboriginal groups to provide for the protection and enhancement of treaty assets based on sound management practices and democratic control by the beneficiaries.

o) Programs

ARC - 53

INTERIMPOLICY

16 NCR#6950313 - v1

Beneficiaries of a treaty will retain their eligibility for government programs, except where a comparable jurisdiction, authority or program has been assumed by an Aboriginal government pursuant to a treaty. Benefits received under such programs that will be determined by general program criteria.

p) Tax Matters

Cash and Lands The cash component payable under an agreement will be regarded as a capital transfer and will be exempt from taxation. However, any income derived from the cash component will be subject to provisions of the Income Tax Act. Other elements of capital transfer of the treaty, such as a share of resource revenues, will be subject to prevailing taxation legislation and practices. Unimproved lands may be exempted from property taxation except in relation to municipal services. Tax Powers and Tax Treatment The tax powers and tax treatment of Aboriginal governments as well as the tax treatment of their institutions and citizens is addressed in the context of self-government negotiations under the Inherent Right Policy (1995).

q) Beneficiaries to the Agreement

Those who benefit from treaties must be Canadian citizens of Aboriginal ancestry from the settlement area, or their descendents, or other persons as defined by mutually-agreed criteria. During negotiations, individuals may shift their connection from one negotiation process to another. Ultimately, however, beneficiaries cannot participate in or benefit from more than one treaty. Treaties may provide for beneficiaries to transfer between treaties after they come into effect. The definition of beneficiaries will not affect the status of persons under the Indian Act.

r) Dispute Resolution

Treaties will include processes for the resolution of conflicts or disputes respecting the interpretation, application or implementation of the agreement. Dispute resolution will normally follow a staged approach encompassing collaborative negotiations, facilitation or mediation and arbitration. Use of arbitration should require the consent of all parties to the dispute on matters beyond determination of fact or on technical issues, unless otherwise specified in the treaty.

Self-Government Negotiations

ARC - 54

INTERIMPOLICY

17 NCR#6950313 - v1

In 1995, the Government of Canada recognized the inherent right of self-government as an existing right within Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Canada’s policy framework for the implementation of the inherent right of self-government is set out in the 1995 publication entitled The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government. The document is commonly referred to as the Inherent Right Policy (1995). The Inherent Right Policy (1995) sets out an approach for negotiation of practical self-government arrangements that operate within the framework of the Canadian Constitution. The scope of negotiations under the policy includes: Aboriginal government structures; jurisdiction or law-making powers; provision of programs and services; and fiscal relations and implementation processes.

Negotiation of Non-Treaty Agreements

Treaty negotiations are one among a range of approaches for addressing Section 35 Aboriginal rights. However, not all Aboriginal groups are interested in negotiating a treaty. Reconciliation includes other forms of arrangements. Non-treaty approaches can be an effective way to address Section 35 Aboriginal rights. Canada supports negotiation of bilateral arrangements in areas of federal responsibility, including fisheries and marine issues, offshore development, and/or tripartite arrangements in provinces and territories that address economic and strategic interests in stability and predictability over lands and resources. In areas of federal jurisdiction, Canada may negotiate non-treaty agreements consistent with its mandates for treaty negotiations and the Inherent Right Policy (1995). Negotiation of these agreements is open to Aboriginal groups with unresolved Aboriginal rights claims, whether they are in the treaty negotiation process or not. Entry into non-treaty agreement negotiations with Canada will commence once a proposal has been received and approved by Canada.

Aggregation of Aboriginal Groups

Canada continues to encourage aggregated approaches in treaty negotiations, self-government arrangements and non-treaty arrangements. Canada considers aggregation as an effective and affordable way for resource management and governance administration.

Public and Third-Party Interests

In negotiating the rights of Aboriginal people in treaties, the Government of Canada does not intend to prejudice the existing rights of others. The general public interest and third-party interests will be respected in the negotiation of agreements and, if affected, will be dealt with equitably. Provision must be made for protecting the current interests of non-Aboriginal subsistence users and for the right of the general public to enjoy recreational activities, hunting and fishing on Crown lands, subject to laws of general application.

ARC - 55

INTERIMPOLICY

18 NCR#6950313 - v1

Information about the general status and progress of negotiations will be made available to the public. In addition, part of the mandate of federal negotiators will be to maintain appropriate and effective communication with those third parties whose interests are directly connected to issues under negotiation.

SECTION 3 – TREATY NEGOTIATIONS PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES

The Process for Treaty Negotiations Outside of British Columbia

The following section sets out general procedures for the initiation and conduct of comprehensive land claim negotiations outside of British Columbia. Statement of Claim The claims process begins with the preparation of the statement of claim and appropriate supporting materials by the Aboriginal group. A statement of claim should contain the following elements:

a statement that the Aboriginal group has not previously adhered to treaty; a documented statement from the Aboriginal group that it has traditionally used and

occupied the territory in question and that this use and occupation continues; a description of the extent and location of such land use and occupancy, together with a

map outlining the approximate boundaries; and identification of the Aboriginal group including the names of the bands, tribes and

communities on whose behalf the claim is being made, the claimant’s linguistic and cultural affiliation, and approximate population figures for the Aboriginal group.

Acceptance of Claim Upon receipt of a statement of claim, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will review the submission and accompanying documentation and seek advice of the Minister of Justice as to its acceptability according to legal criteria. The Aboriginal group will be advised by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, within twelve months, as to whether the claim is accepted or rejected. In the event that a claim is rejected, reasons will be provided in writing to the Aboriginal group. Preliminary Negotiations Negotiations toward the development of a framework agreement will be initiated when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development judges the likelihood of successful negotiations to be high, the settlement of claims in the area to be a priority, and where active provincial and territorial involvement may be obtained as necessary. Negotiations will be

ARC - 56

INTERIMPOLICY

19 NCR#6950313 - v1

conducted only with groups duly mandated by the Aboriginal group they represent, to the satisfaction of the Minister. Senior federal negotiators will be appointed by the Minister from within or outside the public service, as appropriate, and will receive initial negotiating mandates from the federal government. Bilateral discussions will be held with the provincial or territorial governments concerned regarding their participation in the negotiations. Framework Agreement Framework agreements will be negotiated and will determine the scope, process, topics and parameters for negotiation. Certainty with respect to lands and resources, self-government, and the order and time frame of negotiations will also be identified in the framework agreements. Framework agreements, and substantial changes to them, will be considered and approved by the federal government. Agreement-in-Principle Non-legally binding agreements-in-principle will require endorsement by the Aboriginal group. This may be provided by resolutions of assemblies or by band council resolutions. Agreements-in-principle will also be considered and approved by the federal government. Final Agreement Final agreements will require the approval of the federal government and must be formally ratified by the Aboriginal groups. Legislation will be passed to give effect to the agreements reached. As set out in the Inherent Right Policy (1995), Canada will require evidence that negotiated agreements have been ratified by the Aboriginal group. The ratification mechanism will also have to comply with legal requirements respecting the transfer of assets.

The British Columbia Treaty Process

In BC, treaty negotiations follow a similar process to elsewhere in Canada. However, in 1990, the governments of Canada and British Columbia, together with the First Nations of British Columbia, established a Claims Task Force to investigate how treaty negotiations might begin in British Columbia and what they should cover. The Claims Task Force made 19 recommendations and suggested a six-stage process for negotiating modern treaties with an independent British Columbia Treaty Commission to oversee and facilitate the process. A tripartite agreement was concluded in 1992; treaty commissioners were first appointed in April 1993; and the treaty process officially began in December 1993.

ARC - 57

INTERIMPOLICY

20 NCR#6950313 - v1

The treaty process is a six-stage negotiation between the federal government, the provincial government and participating First Nations:

Stage 1: Statement of intent to negotiate Stage 2: Readiness to negotiate Stage 3: Negotiation of a framework agreement Stage 4: Negotiation of an agreement-in-principle Stage 5: Negotiation to finalize a treaty Stage 6: Implementation of the treaty

The main difference in the process between outside of BC and the BC treaty negotiation process is that it is open to all First Nations in British Columbia without requirements for submission of statements of claim and supporting materials or for government review and acceptance of claims. The British Columbia Treaty Commission accepts First Nations into the treaty process on the basis of their unresolved claims to Section 35 Aboriginal rights, allocates negotiation support funding and monitors the progress of negotiations.

Implementation

Final agreements must be accompanied by implementation plans that set out the understanding of how obligations contained in the agreements will be fulfilled. The implementation plans are intended to ensure efficient and timely implementation of the various elements of settlement agreements. The Inherent Right Policy (1995) addresses requirements for implementation plans and financial arrangements where self-government is included in comprehensive land claim agreements. Learn more about the implementation of comprehensive land claim and self-government agreements at https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100032284/1100100032286

Federal Steering Committee

A committee composed of Assistant Deputy Ministers from government agencies and departments most involved in claims negotiations will continue. The committee reviews and provides advice to Ministers on negotiating mandates, the negotiating process, framework agreements, agreements-in-principle and final agreements. The committee provides a regular ongoing review, at a senior level, of treaty priorities, negotiating strategies, and operational and policy issues that relate to negotiations, while maintaining an overview of activities across the federal government related to negotiations. Finally, the committee provides policy elaboration and advice, monitors progress and facilitates the participation of all federal departments and agencies as required in negotiation processes.

ARC - 58

INTERIMPOLICY

21 NCR#6950313 - v1

Glossary

Aboriginal peoples are the descendants of the original inhabitants of North America. The Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes three groups of Aboriginal people - Indians, Métis and Inuit. These are three separate peoples with unique heritages, languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs. Aboriginal rights are practices, traditions and customs integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right and that existed prior to contact with the Europeans. Aboriginal rights may also include Aboriginal title which is an Aboriginal interest in the land based on long standing use and occupancy of the land by certain modern-day Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal self-government are governments designed, established and administered by Aboriginal peoples under the Canadian Constitution through a process of negotiation with Canada and, where applicable, the provincial government. Treaty First Nation is a First Nation that signed a treaty with the Crown.

ARC - 59

INTERIMPOLICY

22 NCR#6950313 - v1

Provide Us With Your Feedback The Government of Canada will continue to move forward with its Aboriginal partners across Canada to deliver tangible and lasting results and ensure that Aboriginal communities are well positioned to be full participants in a strong Canadian economy. Canada believes that public outreach helps to reinforce awareness and understanding of Section 35 rights and the economic opportunities made possible by modern treaties. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has appointed Douglas Eyford as Ministerial Special Representative to lead engagement activities with Aboriginal groups and other key stakeholders based on what you have just read. We are also providing further background information. Mr. Eyford is looking forward to receiving comments and feedback from all interested parties to help finalize the renewed policy. Please visit the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website at http://www.aandc.gc.ca/section35 for background material and to provide feedback on the renewed policy through various online options or write to the Ministerial Special Representative, Douglas Eyford at: Policy Development and Coordination Branch Treaties and Aboriginal Government Sector Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development 10 Wellington, 8th Floor Gatineau (Québec) K1A 0H4

ARC - 60

a metrovancouver ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

---·------- - - --------- - -- - ---- --- ---

NOV 1 9 2014

Mr. Bhar Sihota, Policy Analyst Union of BC Municipalities 10551 Shellbridge Way #60, Richmond, BC V6X 2W9

Dear Mr. Sihota:

Legal and Legislative Services

Tel. 604 436-6872 Fax 604 451-6112

File: AD-02-01-UBCM

Re: Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, "First Nation Property

Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia"

In response to your request of October 22, 2014, and in the absence of Metro Vancouver committees meeting prior to your November 19, 2014 deadline for responses from local governments, the following Metro Vancouver staff comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities report titled, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia", are submitted for consideration by the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM).

The below comments are organized according to the five recommendations found in the Conclusions and Suggestions section on pages 35-36 of the Report.

1. Report recommendation: "Promote and support collaboration and cooperation between the Tufa Centre of Indigenous Economics and universities that support the local government officers association such as Capilano, Northwest and UVIC" (page 35).

Metro Vancouver staff comments: While the Report does not specifically set out the intent of this recommendation, we assume that the goal is to help Aboriginal students and local government officers develop better understandings of the legal, administrative, and infrastructure frameworks of both First Nations and local governments. Education and training are valuable for developing a common knowledge base so that representatives from local governments and First Nations understand respective local issues and governance and financing structures which will help to establish pricing arrangements for future service agreements. This recommendation is supported by staff and would be recommended for support to the Board.

Cross-representation, entailing periodic attendance by a regional district director at band council meetings or First Nations Summit meetings, could also be considered for educational purposes.

2. Report recommendation: "Develop processes to remove First Nations from municipal boundaries on the request of First Nations to clarify service and representation responsibilities" (page 35).

Metro Vancouver staff comments: This recommendation does not go far enough. Moreover, it does not align with the discussion and recommendation set out on page 29 of the Report.

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4G8 • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org

Greater Vancouver Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District • Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation

6.5

ARC - 61

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and

Economic Development in British Columbia" Page 2 of 8

With respect to the latter point, in the body of the Report the author states: "It should be the policy of the provincial government to respond favourably to requests from a municipal council that requests the removal of a reserve from within its legal boundaries" (page 29).

The recommendation set out above, as opposed to the discussion on page 29 of the Report, limits the requester to the First Nation only. The recommendation should state: "Develop processes to remove First Nations lands from municipal and regional district boundaries on the request of local governments or First Nations to clarify service and representation responsibilities." The ability to request removals should not be limited to requests from First Nations.

Moreover, as set out above, the recommendation should include a reference to regional districts. The issues and concerns raised in the Report in support of this recommendation with respect to municipalities also apply to regional districts. We would not support a policy that would permit First Nations' lands to be excluded from municipalities and yet included in regional districts. The discussion in the report does not flesh out how such a proposal would be possible, nor does it set out the jurisdictional conflicts that would arise from such an approach.

This recommendation with the amendments suggested is consistent with BC provincial policy to specifically exclude Indian Reserves from municipal boundary expansions, and with the provincial policies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The provincial government recognizes that there are multiple implications with respect to having Indian Reserves contained within defined local government boundaries; in fact, as a matter of provincial policy, municipalities incorporated since 1990 specifically exclude Indian Reserves from municipal boundaries. For example, one of the criteria set out by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development for municipal boundary expansions states that "Indian Reserves will not be within municipal boundaries."

The recent incorporation of the District of West Kelowna in 2007 is an example of this principle put into practice. The boundaries for the new municipality excluded the established reserves of the Westbank First Nation, notwithstanding that the new municipality surrounds the reserve lands. In 2011, local governments within the former Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) stated that the containment of Indian Reserves within local government boundaries has broader implications for municipal and regional district elections and referenda. The existing jurisdictional overlap creates a situation where both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals residing on Indian Reserves can participate in local government elections and referenda even though the Indian Reserves are outside the regulation and taxation authority of the local government.

A review of the eligibility requirements for voting in local government election is timely, considering the emergence of new federal legislation such as the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA). Large-scale residential market developments on Indian Reserves under FNCIDA will likely mean a significant increase in the non-Aboriginal populations living on Indian Reserves, which will exacerbate the issue of 'representation without taxation'.

10523170

ARC - 62

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia" Page 3 of 8

At the March 18, 2012 meeting, the Metro Vancouver Board passed a recommendation identifying the issue of 'representation without taxation' as important for local governments in Metro Vancouver and indicated to the provincial government that this matter needs to be addressed as a priority item in the near term.

3. Report recommendation: "Consider a pilot project coordinated by the FNTC and UBCM with a non­treaty First Nation to directly participate in regional district governance, planning, services and infrastructure" (page 35).

Metro Vancouver staff comments: This recommendation requires further elaboration and clarification. For example, it is not clear on page 29 of the report whether the authors are putting forth the idea that Indian Reserves should be distinct entities such as electoral areas within a regional district or whether the non-treaty First Nations should sit on committees as if they were an electoral area or whether all reserves should be considered as electoral areas even though they are located within a municipality. Obviously, significant review and revision of provincial and federal legislation would be required in order to achieve this recommendation. With respect, the concept set out in the Report regarding direct participation in regional district governa.nce is too inchoate at the present time to determine and analyse the concepts alluded to in the Report. While a subsequent report might flesh out this incipient concept in more detail, significant input from regional districts and municipalities would be needed to ensure that the concerns of local government were identified and adequately addressed.

The report also states that: · " ... the obvious solution is for the provincial government to enter into discussions with First Nations and local governments regarding First Nations membership on regional district boards [ ... ]. To exclude non-treaty First Nations from potential regional district membership is to exclude most First Nations from this option for the foreseeable future, including the largest and most economically developed First Nations" (p. 33).

This, and the other recommendations set out in this Report, will be dependent upon the political will of both the participant First Nation(s) and regional district.

In addition, the report fails to acknowledge the unique situations of some regional districts. For example, with respect to Metro Vancouver, the Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) are separate legal entities from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). Service agreements between non-treaty First Nations (Indian Bands) and neighbouring municipalities located within the region may, therefore, necessitate entering into tripartite service agreements that include the GVWD and/or GVS&DD for the delivery of water and/or sewer services to Indian Bands.

10523170

ARC - 63

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and

Economic Development In British Columbia" Page 4 of 8

The prov1s1on of sewer services to Indian Reserves within Metro Vancouver also requires the proposed service area to become part of the GVS&DD service area and to be included in the regional district's Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP), as well as the Regional Growth Strategy. At present, there is no legislative framework to facilitate these agreements. Some additional potential implications of non-treaty First Nations' participation on regional district boards are briefly explored below.

In the Lower Mainland, where most Indian Reserves are located within incorporated municipalities, Indian Band administrations have worked to develop agreements with local governments for the delivery of 'hard' and 'soft' services that the First Nation communities cannot in a cost effective manner provide to their residents. The contractual relationships between Indian Bands and local governments for the provision of services are primarily with municipal governments, not regional districts.

Under its Policy Guidelines on the Provision of Water and Sewer Services Outside Municipal Service Areas (July 1996), Metro Vancouver considers requests for utility services by non-treaty First Nations through the applicable member of the GVS&DD for sewerage or the GVWD for water. Currently, one treaty First Nation (i.e. Tsawwassen) is a member of Metro Vancouver. Tsawwassen First Nation became a treaty First Nation member of the GVRD and the GVWD on its treaty effective date in accordance with the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement.

Treaty First Nations are independent legal entities that have many, if not all, the powers typically exercised by local government in BC. First Nations operating under the Indian Act, on the other hand, have much less autonomy to make independent decisions related to their communities. For instance, a non-treaty First Nation does not have natural person powers to enter into contractual arrangements and, therefore, it would be challenging for a local government to pursue First Nations to uphold their contractual obligations.

Also, the limited utility bylaw-making and enforcement authorities of non-treaty First Nations have significant implications for the provision of regional services to Indian Reserves. Without the ability to ensure that relevant regulatory bylaws are fully adopted and enforced on Indian Reserves, the GVS&DD would be held liable for any violations of environmental discharge permits on Reserve lands.

It is suggested in the Report that: "One solution for service cooperation is for a First Nation representative to sit on the Regional District committee that supervises that particular service and makes payments for that service as if it were a member municipality" (page 30).

Participation of member jurisdictions in all core services is required for achieving the economies of scale. The main impetus for creating regional districts in BC in the 1960s was to deliver and operate quality services that could not be afforded by a single municipality alone and to deal with the 'free-

10523170

ARC - 64

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia" Page 5 of 8

rider' problem of users benefiting from services without shouldering their share of the costs. Municipalities in the lower Mainland share the desire to have regional governance authorities and cost sharing arrangements that are consistent and inclusive across all jurisdictions.

To that erid, all member authorities (including Tsawwassen First Nation) participate in the funding of Metro Vancouver's six main regional functions, including general government, air quality, regional parks, labour relations, strategic planning and 911 services~ Most, but not all, are members of the Water District and the Sewerage District. In light of this existing regional governance structure, it is important to consider whether First Nations should be required to pay for core regional services such as regional parks and air quality in order to benefit from other services with more immediate benefits, such as water and sewer. The Report seems to suggest that First Nations should be able to choose only some services of immediate benefit to their communities. However, this model would undermine the efficacy of regional programs and create inequities within the region.

It is further stated in the Report that: "First Nations are unlikely to enter into full membership where regional growth strategies are involved because they are not part of the regional growth strategy planning process. However, the prospect of full regional district participation would be an incentive for both First Nation and non-First Notion consideration of First Nation lands in future growth strategy planning" (page 30).

The establishment of land use plans, in the same fashion as a municipal government, must be a pre-requisite for First Nation eligibility for regional district membership. This would include the requirement that the First Nation's Official Community Plan be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). Under the Local Government Act, all jurisdictions within a region cooperate to adopt land use policies consistent with the RGS. Each municipality has to develop a Regional Context Statement that sets out the relationship between the municipality's OCP and the RGS. The RGS is adopted within the context of a federation model wherein the terms of the RGS are negotiated by independent bodies that recognize their common goals in the development of a regional strategy.

The necessity of incorporating First Nation planning goals into Metro Vancouver's RGS is also a pre­requisite to utility service delivery. In Metro Vancouver the RGS is binding on the Utility Districts, which means that the GVS&DD and GVWD cannot serve any lands with land use plans that are incompatible with, or contradictory to, the RGS. Moreover, sewerage services may only be provided within the Sewerage Areas outlined in Metro Vancouver's Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) and in accordance with the RGS. Entities outside of the Sewerage Area boundaries, including non-treaty First Nations that wish to receive sewerage services, must apply through a neighbouring member of the GVS&DD and the Sewerage Area boundaries are required to be amended to include the new lands.

10523170

ARC - 65

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, uFfrst Nation Property Tax, Services and

Economic Development In British Columbia" Page 6of 8

Before sewerage services can be provided to Indian Reserves that are not within the Sewerage Area boundaries, the boundaries must be redrawn to encompass the proposed service area. At present, there is no legislative framework to authorize the redrawing of the Sewerage Area boundaries to incorporate Indian Reserves. Similarly, there is no legislative framework that permits the RGS, LWMP or regional bylaws and regulations to apply to lands within Indian Reserves.

Participation in regional districts has a number of benefits for its member authorities; however, it also comes with certain obligations. Some First Nations may perceive the RGS as impinging on their authority and may have difficulty balancing the regional needs against those of their respective communities. Others may be concerned that full membership on regional district boards may restrict their land use planning processes and future development plans. Therefore, further explanation and clarity with respect to non-treaty First Nations' participation on regional districts is required in the Report in order to be able to comment specifically on the recommendation put forward.

With respect to transportation issues, the authors point out that First Nations have not been included in either the planning or governance of Translink and recommend that First Nations participate in Translink governance. Every local government within the Translink service region remits a portion of property taxes to Translink. However, Indian Bands, do not remit any property taxes to either local governments or Translink. From a local government perspective, given that Translink cannot enter into service agreements, agreements for any new developments on the lands of non-treaty First Nations would be ideal, with the First Nation paying Translink an amount equivalent to a property tax levy, even though Translink cannot guarantee what services it may be able to deliver to such developments.

From a First Nation perspective, however, if Translink wishes to obtain tax equivalent revenues from First Nations, the Translink governing system will need to be revised to include non-treaty First Nation participation in governance at the same time. Given the complex governance, taxation, planning and service delivery structures set out in Translink's governing legislation, the BC South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (SCBCTA Act), it may be best to welcome the opportunity for Translink to provide specific input to ensure its issues are adequately addressed.

4. Report recommendation: "Consider other First Nation regional participation opportunities such as those associated with hospital districts" (page 35).

Metro Vancouver staff comments: This recommendation is supportable. Regional participation by treaty First Nations is necessary to ensure proper integration and inclusion in regional governance. A good example of this is Tsawwassen First Nation, which joined Metro Vancouver (Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Water District) on Treaty Effective Date on April 3rd, 2009. Tsawwassen also participates on Metro Vancouver's political, administrative and technical committees.

10523170

ARC - 66

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, uFfrst Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia" Page 7 of 8

For non-treaty First Nations, participation on regional district boards will require legislative changes from the provincial government, as noted in the Report. However, currently there are opportunities for these First Nations to participate on technical committees in order to benefit from knowledge-sharing and help build some capacity. A good example of this is Musqueam's representation as a non-voting associate member of Metro Vancouver's Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC), which is made up of directors of planning from each of the GVRD­member municipalities, treaty First Nation, as well as the manager of planning from the GVRD and Translink. Non-voting associate members include other organizations with an interest in planning, such as BC Hydro, Fortis BC, Ministry of Environment, Transport Canada, UBC, and Vancouver International Airport Authority.

In the absence of regional participation opportunities, an alternative that can assist First Nation and local governments achieve similar objectives is for respective local governments and First Nations to promote joint discussions, such as Community to Community Forums. Such forums are useful for relationship-building, promoting dialogue and communication, creating awareness of the respective goals, plans and issues, and possibly assisting in carrying out joint project solving initiatives and partnership opportunities. Metro Vancouver and Katzie First Nation hosted a successful Community to Community Forum in July 2014 and are currently preparing for a joint technical servicing workshop with Katzie First Nation in December 2014. Subject to First Nations' engagement, Metro Vancouver endeavours to host similar events each year with different First Nation(s).

5. Report recommendation: ''The UBCM and the FNTC should work together to encourage the provincia/legislative changes necessary to ensure the First Nations Fiscal Management Act applies to First Nations in post treaty environment so that they have access to institutional services and long term infrastructure capital" (page 36).

Metro Vancouver staff comments. This recommendation is also supportable. It is important for post-treaty First Nations to have the necessary access to funding opportunities for future infrastructure projects (including servicing) in order to attract investments for economic development. Properly funded treaty First Nations will greatly assist future relationships and business arrangements with local governments.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the document, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and Economic Development in British Columbia", and to provide comments to UBCM for consideration by the First Nations Relations Committee.

10523170

ARC - 67

Union of BC Municipalities Staff Comments on the Professor Robert Bish/Fiscal Realities Report, "First Nation Property Tax, Services and

Economic Development in British Columbia" Page 8 of 8

Please feel free to contact Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations (tel: 604-432-6388; marino.piombini@metrovancouver.org) or Agnes Rosicki, Senior Policy Analyst, Aboriginal Relations (tel : 604-451-6175; agnes.rosicki@metrovancouver.org) at your convenience if you have any questions regarding these comments or if you wish to discuss further.

Yours truly,

Ralph G. Hildebrand General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Counsel Metro Vancouver

RGH/mp/ar/kt

10523170

ARC - 68

Prepared by: Professor Robert Bish and Fiscal Realities Economists

412 Sun Rivers Drive West, Kamloops, BC 250.851.0780 www.fiscalrealities.com

First Nation Property Tax, Services

and Economic Development in

British Columbia

Presented to:

the First Nations Tax Commission and

the Union of BC Municipalities

This paper reflects the views of the authors only and not necessarily those of the

First Nations Tax Commission or the Union of BC Municipalities.

6.6

ARC - 69

03 June 2014

First Nation Taxation, Services, and Economic Development i www.fiscalrealities.com

Contents

I. ! First Nation Property Tax, Services, and Economic Development in British Columbia....................................................................................... 1!

II. ! First Nation Taxation and Service Issues before First Nation Property Tax (pre-1988)......................................................................................... 2!

III. ! Clarifying Property Taxation and Service Responsibility on Reserves: Bills C-115 and 64 (post-1988)................................................................ 5!

IV. ! The Implementation of First Nation Property Tax................................... 8!

Education and Training ..................................................................................11!

ITAB.........................................................................................................11!

University of Victoria ..................................................................................13!

V. ! The Evolution of First Nation Institutions ............................................. 15!

First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) .................................................16!

First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)..............19!

First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA) ..............................................21!

First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA) ..............................................22!

Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics..........................................................23!

Other Colleges and Universities...................................................................24!

VI. ! Emerging Policy Issues: Where do First Nations go from here?............ 25!

Implementing New Revenue Options...............................................................25!

Pricing Contracts for Services..........................................................................26!

Political Representation ..................................................................................28!

Other Tax-Service Relationships......................................................................30!

Planning and Mutual Boundary Coordination ....................................................31!

Treaties and FMA...........................................................................................34!

VII. ! Conclusions and Suggestions................................................................. 35!

VIII. !Appendix A – Service Agreement Examples .............................................I!

IX. ! Appendix B – Specific Service Agreements...............................................I!

X. ! References ............................................................................................... V!

ARC - 70

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 1 www.fiscalrealities.com

I. First Nation Property Tax, Services, and Economic

Development in British Columbia

First Nations in British Columbia have made more progress toward becoming part of the

Canadian federal system in the 26 years since the introduction of First Nation taxation in

1988 than they did in the more than one hundred previous years, dating back to the

passage of the Indian Act in 1876. In this short policy analysis we will briefly review the

problems that led to the 1988 Indian Act amendments, the progress since that time, and

the kinds of policies that will contribute most toward continued benefits for First Nations,

other governments, and all citizens of Canada.

ARC - 71

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 2 www.fiscalrealities.com

II. First Nation Taxation and Service Issues before First

Nation Property Tax (pre-1988)

Before 1988, forty five reserves were considered within the boundaries of municipalities

and the remaining reserves within regional districts, school districts, and other kinds of

local governments. These local governments all levied property taxes on leaseholds held

by non-Aboriginals on reserves, as did the provincial government on reserves outside of

municipal boundaries. None of these governments had any legal requirement to provide

services to the lease-paying taxpayers.1 The levying of taxes by the local and provincial

government on reserve lands, a practice abandoned in other provinces, while generating

significant revenues for a few local governments, also resulted in problems for both First

Nations and local governments, especially municipalities.

Complaints about the levying of property taxes on reserves by non-Aboriginal

governments had been voiced by First Nations since the 1970’s. The complaints from

First Nations included that such taxation lowered the market value of leaseholds

because leaseholders had to pay taxes but did not receive service benefits in return.

First Nations also objected to their lack of political control over taxation levied on their

territories.

The findings of a study of taxation and service relationships in 1987 concluded2:

! Overall tax revenues from reserve lands for all governments in BC were $7.6 million,

less than 1% of all provincial property tax revenues.

! Some municipalities obtained significant revenues (Vancouver, West Vancouver,

District of North Vancouver) and others derived a significant share of their property

tax revenue (Burns Lake 28.9%, Duncan 15%) from reserve leaseholds.

1 In a technical sense these BC governments were not levying a “property tax” on reserve lands, but rather were levying a tax on the non-Aboriginal leaseholder with the amount calculated as if it were a property tax.

2 Robert L. Bish, Property Taxation and the Provision of Government Services on Indian Reserves in British Columbia. Center for Public Sector Studies, University of Victoria, March 1987. (53pp).

ARC - 72

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 3 www.fiscalrealities.com

! On average, only 25% of the on-site services provided to other municipal tax payers

were provided to leaseholders without additional contractual relationships and

payment, but some municipalities provided full services while others provided none

(on-site services include fire protection, water, sewers, roads, etc).

The most important problem for local governments was that there was no way to

enforce the collection of delinquent taxes, but as collectors for the provincial

government (school taxes), regional districts and other local governments, they had to

pass on the amounts levied by those governments whether or not they actually collected

the taxes from leaseholders. With no way to enforce collection, and the lack of

cooperation from First Nations who objected to the taxation in the first place,

delinquency rates were very high. While delinquency data for individual municipalities

was not available, the Provincial Surveyor of Taxes reported that delinquencies on

current and back taxes were 59.8% of the 1986 levy on reserve.

Complicating the tax-service-delinquency issues were several other issues in the

relationship between First Nations and other governments. While provincial legislation

required municipalities to tax leaseholders on reserves, there was no obligation to

provide services, and municipal regulatory by-laws such as zoning, noise, and animal

control were not applicable to reserve lands. Further complicating matters for both First

Nations and municipalities was the uncertain status of legal contracts between First

Nations and municipalities, and subsequently, regional districts. While the BC Municipal

Act provided that municipalities had the authority to contract with First Nations and

court decisions concluded that First Nations had the power to contract without Indian

and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) involvement, some British Columbia lawyers advised

their clients that contracts with First Nations had to be signed by the Minister. Earlier

research indicated that the Minister was historically involved in contracts for capital

projects between First Nations and municipalities, but that INAC also was a very poor

contract manager, a problem that was complicating First Nation-local government

relationships in several communities. In spite of these difficulties there were many

contracts for services between First Nations and municipalities that were working well

and did not have the involvement of INAC.

ARC - 73

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 4 www.fiscalrealities.com

Provincial government property taxes in rural areas are used to provide partial funding

for policing and roads. Policing was always provided to reserves under the subsidized

provincial contract with the RCMP, but because roads on First Nation reserves were not

owned by the Provincial government, they provided no roads or road maintenance to

the tax-paying leaseholders on reserve. Throughout the province, the provincial and

municipal governments collected property taxes for schools. Because these taxes are

submitted to the provincial government, which in turn provides financing to school

districts on a formula basis, there is no relationship between school property taxes and

school services. All children in the province are entitled to attend public schools and this

included children residing on reserve leaseholds. The federal government also finances

public schooling for Aboriginal children with transfer payments to the province.

ARC - 74

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 5 www.fiscalrealities.com

III. Clarifying Property Taxation and Service Responsibility

on Reserves: Bills C-115 and 64 (post-1988)

While the 1987 study of tax-services relationships was underway, Kamloops Indian Band

Chief Manny Jules and INAC developed Bill C-115, the 1988 amendment to the Indian

Act. The amendment clarified that conditionally surrendered reserve lands (land leased

to non-Aboriginals and called “designated lands” in the legislation) remained under

jurisdiction of the First Nation and that all First Nations were authorized to levy property

taxation. The Bill did not exclude provincial and local government taxation of leasehold

land on reserves, but legal opinions held that if a First Nation introduced property tax

that was specifically for the benefit of the First Nation, courts would rule to exclude

provincially sponsored taxation. A consequence of the legislation was the creation of the

Indian Taxation Advisory Board (ITAB) to regulate First Nation property tax. Following

the passage of the legislation, ITAB proceeded to sponsor information workshops,

provide informative publications, conduct research, and provide training in implementing

property tax to representatives of interested First Nations.

As part of INAC funded research, a very detailed analysis of the implications of Bill C-115

was published in 19913. Because of its use of specific case studies, it revealed an

additional problem in the relationship between local property taxes and service provision

that was not revealed by the previous province-wide study. This study analyzed taxes,

service arrangements, service costs, and the revenue-service cost balance for the

Cowichan, Musqueam, Westbank, Burns Lake, and Lake Babine First Nations and all BC

governments within whose tax jurisdiction they were located. The leaseholds on these

reserves accounted for approximately 30% of all leasehold property taxes in the

province and represented a variety of situations.

3 Robert L Bish, Eric G. Clemens, and Hector G. Topham. Study of the Tax and Service Implications of Bill C-115 (Taxation amendments to the Indian Act). Center for Public Sector Studies, University of Victoria, October 1991. (134pp).

ARC - 75

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 6 www.fiscalrealities.com

The study concluded that where leaseholds were primarily commercial (Cowichan, Burns

Lake) or very high-value residential (Musqueam), property tax revenues exceeded the

average share of service costs funded by property taxes in the respective local

governments. However, where leaseholds were primarily residential (Westbank),

especially if low-valued, property tax revenues did not cover the average share of

service costs financed from property tax revenues.4 It was also recognized that by

selecting case studies where revenues were significant, most service delivery issues had

been resolved by local agreements in the past. Such agreements were not as common

for First Nations where lesser revenues were involved. The mismatch between property

tax revenue and service costs continues to be a problem for some First Nations just as it

is for small municipalities that lack a balanced tax base.

The initial provincial government response to Bill C-115 (the taxation amendments to

the Indian Act), the Indian Land Tax Co-operation Act (Bill 77), authorized the British

Columbia Assessment Authority, the Surveyor of Taxes and local governments to provide

tax administration services to First Nations. It did not, however, end the main issues

under dispute: the taxation of First Nation lands without the permission of the First

Nation and without the provision of services.

Bill 77 was replaced in 1990 by Bill 64, the Indian Self Government Enabling Act. This

act provided three options for First Nations:

1. Concurrent property tax jurisdiction: This would be an arrangement where

both BC local governments and the First Nation would levy taxes on leasehold lands,

with an agreement on tax sharing and service responsibility worked out between

them.

2. Independent property taxation: First Nations could exclude all other taxing

jurisdictions, levy their own property taxes, and make their own purchase of service

agreements with other governments.

4 The most important reason for this result is that in BC it is common for property tax rates to be much

higher on commercial and industrial property than on residential. Thus commercial and industrial property taxes tend to be much higher than the costs of services to those properties while residential property taxes do not cover the costs of servicing residential property.

ARC - 76

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 7 www.fiscalrealities.com

3. Indian Districts: If the federal government granted corporate status (similar to

Sechelt) the First Nation could use either property tax option and participate in

provincial programs for municipalities including provincial revenue sharing, the

Municipal Finance Authority, and other grant programs.

With all of the options, the First Nation could contract with the BC Assessment Authority,

other BC government agencies, or local governments, for tax administration and

services. Bill 64 clearly recognized that First Nation governments had both tax and

service responsibility for reserve lands. However, for any First Nation that did not

implement property taxation, the provincial government and local governments would

continue to tax the leaseholds on those lands. There are still some First Nation lands in

BC (such as the Okanagan First Nation) where the provincial and regional district

governments continue to collect taxes from First Nation lessees.

ARC - 77

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 8 www.fiscalrealities.com

IV. The Implementation of First Nation Property Tax

There were four very important changes with the passage of Bills C-115 and 64. They

were:

1. The legislation clarified jurisdiction on First Nation reserves. It was now clear that

the First Nation government had regulatory control and exclusive jurisdiction for

taxation of leasehold lands on reserves.

2. The legislation changed bargaining power between local governments and the First

Nations. Local governments lost jurisdiction to impose taxes on leaseholders without

providing services. Future relationships would be between equal parties who could

make service arrangements for mutual benefit.

3. The legislation provided for First Nations to have an independent revenue base. Such

a revenue base could be used to finance infrastructure to promote economic

development on reserve lands.

4. The Indian Taxation Advisory Board was established in 1989 to regulate and make

recommendations to the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada on

the approval of property tax by-laws enacted pursuant to the Indian Act. The Board

included both First Nation and non-First Nation members. All of the non-First Nation

members were experts in property taxation and some of whom also represented

taxpayers.

ITAB proceeded to develop an extensive body of policy and assisted First Nations with

the development and implementation of their property tax systems. It also maintained a

policy that First Nation property tax systems should be compatible with their respective

provincial systems to ensure a smooth transition to First Nation jurisdiction. This policy

meant that First Nations would use compatible assessment practices and classifications

as those used by other property taxing governments in the province.

ARC - 78

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 9 www.fiscalrealities.com

The implementation of First Nation property tax and renegotiation of existing contracts

went reasonably well, although some local governments, who wanted a veto over First

Nation property tax within their area until service revenue sharing contracts were in

place, objected to the implementation of property tax by First Nations5. ITAB played a

major role in providing research, consulting, training, and dispute resolution services.

The provincial Ministries of Aboriginal Affairs, Finance, and Municipal Affairs all facilitated

implementation of the Bill 64 legislation. The BC Assessment Authority provided the First

Nations with initial assessment rolls at no cost and entered into contracts to continue

the assessment function for most First Nations entering into taxation. The Ministry of

Finance also agreed to withdraw from school taxation6 with no reduction in education

services. This freed up tax revenues for First Nation use that were often in excess of

the costs of providing other local government services. The Ministry also agreed that if a

First Nation submitted school taxes to the province, it would rebate the funds for

homeowner grants.

Because there was considerable variety in First Nation-municipal tax-service

relationships, there was less uniformity in the response by local governments to a First

Nation’s implementation of taxation on a reserve within municipal boundaries where the

municipality had previously received tax revenue—whether or not it provided services to

leaseholders or the entire reserve. It was also becoming clear that some First Nations

outside of municipal boundaries could potentially benefit from either contracting with the

regional district or participating directly in regional district functions to obtain services in

the most efficient manner.

5 See for example UBCM Resolutions 1993:B22, 1995:LR4, and 1995:A16. Online at

http://www.ubcm.ca/resolutions/default.aspx 6 School taxes are collected under that designation by the provincial government and go into provincial

general revenue. School district funding is through a formula by the provincial government and has no relationship to the “school taxes” collected. Provincial “school taxes” cover only one-third of school expenditures with the remainder coming from other provincial revenue sources. However, if the deduction of the Home owner Grants are taken into account school tax revenues are even less, perhaps no more than 10% of the cost of schools. School districts themselves do not levy property taxes.

ARC - 79

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 10 www.fiscalrealities.com

Many of the early service contracts have been

renegotiated and renewed. There were also

mediations and some arbitrations where disputes

arose. There are now many contracts between

First Nations, municipalities and regional districts.7

In general, contracts provide for the provision of

on-site services to reserve lands (in some cases

just leaseholds; in others the entire reserve). The

common services negotiated within these

agreements are fire protection, water provision,

sanitary sewage collection and disposal, and 911

emergency dispatch. In some cases, they can also

include such services as building inspection,

transit, storm water management, dog control,

noxious weed control, parks and recreation, and

libraries. Payment approaches vary with the two

most common being a negotiated price for the

service package or a payment equal to the

municipal taxes that would have otherwise been

collected from the leaseholders. Different

approaches are taken because reserve lands vary

considerably both in their land use and in the relationship between taxes that would be

raised at municipal rates and the costs of services. In general, reserves with commercial

or high valued residential properties would raise more tax revenue than service costs

while reserve lands that are residential, especially if occupied by low-valued mobile

homes, do not generate sufficient taxes revenues to cover service costs. Some

municipalities have entered into contracts to provide services at a tax-equivalent price to

residential reserves because they recognize that the reserve leaseholders are part of

their community and that everyone will benefit if reserves maintain higher service

quality and have future economic development.

7 Appendices A and B contain examples of many of these agreements in British Columbia.

Tzeachten and Chilliwack – A

Model Service Agreement

In 1991, Tzeachten signed a service

agreement with Chilliwack. The

negotiations were acrimonious and

neither party was particularly satisfied

with the agreement because the First

Nation felt they were paying too much

for the services they received and the

local government felt uncertainty

about future development on

Tzeachten lands. In 2006, the parties

renegotiated their service agreement.

It included a comprehensive land use

planning process, an agreement about

development cost charges and a new

pricing approach for services provided

on First Nation lands. As a second

generation service agreement it not

only represents a model that has been

used by other First Nations in the

Chilliwack area and Fraser Valley, but

it demonstrates how both parties can

realize mutual benefits when they

focus on their common interest –

regional economic growth.

ARC - 80

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 11 www.fiscalrealities.com

The creation of an independent revenue source has also provided First Nations with the

resources and greater incentive to promote economic development. The development

of property tax powers allowed several First Nations to either finance capital

improvements necessary to attract further investment or to provide investors with the

certainty that services would be available through the life of their investment. The

former was more often the case where property tax room was assumed from a local

government. In some cases, such as Osoyoos, the assumption of tax authority also

provided an impetus for the courts to clarify the status of land over which the adjacent

jurisdiction had claimed a right of way.

The Squiala First Nation is a more recent success story. The enactment of tax laws in

this case allowed the First Nation to ensure services for Walmart. This resulted in an

increase in annual tax revenues from roughly $9,000 per annum to $800,000. There are

many other examples throughout the province where the implementation of taxation has

led to revenues to finance infrastructure, which in turn led to additional economic

development on the reserve. Other First Nations that have used tax revenues to finance

major economic development on their reserve include the Tsawout, Squamish, Shuswap,

Tk’emlups and Skeetchestn First Nations.

Education and Training

ITAB

When the amendments to the Indian Act permitting property taxation on reserve were

passed, followed shortly by Bill 64 in BC, there was virtually no experience with property

taxation in First Nation communities or within INAC. One of the first education and

training priorities for ITAB was to provide the opportunity for First Nation administrators

to become knowledgeable about the steps in property taxation, including assessment

policies and practices, assessment appeals, budgeting and rate setting, collection

systems and enforcement.

ARC - 81

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 12 www.fiscalrealities.com

To achieve this end, ITAB contracted with experienced professionals to prepare and

teach courses. These included a course in setting budget-based property tax rates, a

course in establishing a financial management by-law, and a course in using ITAB’s

proprietary tax administration software at that time: CLASS. Over 60 students,

representing 32 tax collecting First Nations, took these courses.

In addition to these courses, ITAB also developed spreadsheet applications to help First

Nations and local governments establish pricing arrangements for service agreements

and to help First Nations conduct a preliminary property tax revenue potential estimate.

The service agreement application was used in 12 service agreement negotiations and

the revenue potential application was used by 15 First Nations who eventually passed

property tax by-laws.

All of the early ITAB software, spreadsheet applications and courses were updated or

replaced and are still in use by the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC), the successor

to ITAB. For example, the CLASS software was replaced by the Tax Administrator’s

Software (TAS), the service agreement application was updated to include the latest

formulas, and all of the early courses were updated and rewritten for use in the

accredited First Nation Tax Administration Certificate offered by the Tulo Centre of

Indigenous Economics (Tulo) and Thompson Rivers University (TRU).

ARC - 82

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 13 www.fiscalrealities.com

University of Victoria

The School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria had the most developed

courses for local government officials among the universities in the province. Courses in

Local Government were offered as a Certificate Program, as part of a Diploma in Public

Sector Management and as part of the MPA. The courses also met requirements for

provincial government issued certificates in Local Government Administration. In 1994,

the School received a grant from the Donner Canadian Foundation to begin a course in

Property Tax Policy and Administration with a First Nation focus and to create the First

Nations Tax Administrators Institute. The property tax course covered the components

of property tax administration plus the issues of service delivery contracting from local

governments. This course was offered in Victoria and Vancouver and enrolled both First

Nation and non-First Nation students beginning in 1995. With Professor Bish’s retirement

in 1998, the course evolved into a course in local government finance and finally into a

focus on local government financial management (its title was changed to Local

Government Finance). The course continues to be offered as part of the Local

Government Administration Certificate, Diploma in Public Sector Management, and is

available as part of the MPA program. However, it no longer has either a property tax

or First Nation emphasis. The University also offered a Certificate in the Administration

of Aboriginal Governments for several years but, following Professor Frank Cassidy’s

death, Professor Robert Bish’s retirement, and the administrator moving to Camosun

College, it has been discontinued due to lack of interest among other faculty. More

recently Capilano University and Northwest College have been enrolling First Nation

students in their local government courses and representatives from the Tulo Centre of

Indigenous Economics have been participating in discussions about local government

education opportunities with the local government community.

ARC - 83

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 14 www.fiscalrealities.com

The First Nations Tax Administrators Institute (FNTAI) began in 1994. The Institute was

modeled on the Municipal Officers Association of British Columbia (now the Local

Government Management Association) and its purpose was to bring together First

Nation tax administrators annually to provide continuing education in taxation. Annual

meetings included updates on assessment appeals, ITAB policies, and other issues

related to First Nation taxation. The Institute also included sessions for new Tax

Administrators. The FNTAI was run for its first 5 years by the Local Government

Institute at the University of Victoria, and then its operation was turned over to a

committee of First Nation tax administrators who incorporated it as the First Nations Tax

Administrators Association (FNTAA). The FNTAA continues to hold annual conferences

and provides advice to the FNTC on tax policy issues. Its 21st annual conference will be

held in Songhees in September 2014.

The education and training provided during produced a large number of First Nation tax

administrators who are knowledgeable in property taxation. By 2013, 183 First Nations

across Canada collected over $70 million in property taxes.

ARC - 84

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 15 www.fiscalrealities.com

V. The Evolution of First Nation Institutions

The development of First Nation taxation after the passage of Bill C-115 created a need

for an agency to support First Nations in implementing taxation. There was also a need

to provide a regulatory framework that would ensure the integrity and fairness of the

system and supported its evolution in a way that would eventually allow low

administration costs and participation in regional systems. However, at the time that Bill

C-115 passed there was virtually no familiarity with property taxes, limited experience

with municipal type services and very limited experience with relationships between First

Nations and local governments. To fill this gap, the Indian Taxation Advisory Board

(ITAB) was created to advise the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Canada on the approval of by-laws passed pursuant to s.83 of the Indian Act.

The establishment of ITAB to support the implementation of First Nation property tax

led to the development of a considerable body of expertise within ITAB and the

establishment of a fully specified regulatory framework. It was successful beyond

expectations in terms of the growth of revenues and the number of participating First

Nations. However, taxation-supported developments on First Nation lands led to a new

type of challenge: integrating First Nation economies more fully into the economic union

of Canada. Related to this was the challenge of integrating First Nation governments

into more fully specified fiscal and service relationships, particularly at the local and

regional level.

ARC - 85

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 16 www.fiscalrealities.com

Several new pieces of legislation were passed to address this new challenge, including,

most importantly, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) in 2005, which

established the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC), as well as the First Nations

Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA), the First Nations Land

Management Act (FNLMA) and the proposed First Nation Property Ownership Act

(FNPOA). These acts are designed to increase the capacity of First Nations to become

part of the Canadian market economy. The FNTC has also created the Tulo Centre of

Indigenous Economics to provide education and research to support the FNTC

objectives, including greater coordination with other governments and creating the

statutory and regulatory environment for First Nations to become full participants in the

Canadian economy.

First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA)

The First Nations Fiscal Management Act (FMA) was enacted in 2005. The FMA

transferred Ministerial authority over First Nation property taxation from the former ITAB

to the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC), a shared-governance institution with

federal law-approval powers. The reassignment of law-approval powers was intended

partly to improve the efficiency of the First Nations tax system. When Ministerial

approval was required, laws would take two months to be approved. The same laws can

now be approved in one to four weeks. First Nations are now much more responsive to

opportunity as a result. In addition, the FMA also allowed First Nations to address the

issues of economic development, services, and fiscal integration. It provided First

Nations with important new revenue authorities and also created a regulatory regime

which will better support First Nations accessing financing and attracting investment. It

is also intended to serve as a better platform for developing partnerships with other

governments. This legislation was designed to raise First Nations local revenue powers

to the same level as local governments in Canada, improve First Nations access to

capital markets for infrastructure financing, and enhance the First Nations investment

climate. However, it should be noted that First Nations still have the option to collect

property tax using the Indian Act.

ARC - 86

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 17 www.fiscalrealities.com

The FMA established three institutions8 to support participating First Nations in the

implementation of their local revenue, financial management, and long term financing

powers. These three institutions create a regulatory framework for First Nations

equivalent to the provincial regulatory framework for local governments.

First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC) – The FNTC creates the regulatory framework

for First Nation local revenue and expenditure systems and provides supportive services

to help First Nations implement their local revenue and expenditure powers, including

debenture financing. The regulatory system includes ensuring First Nation laws comply

with the FMA, FMA regulations, and FNTC standards. It includes resolving taxpayer or

First Nation complaints about the local revenue system through an administrative

tribunal process and establishing the criteria for First Nations local revenue borrowing

laws. The regulatory system is intended to provide investor and taxpayer confidence

and certainty. FNTC services include sample laws, law development, and review,

university accredited education and training, tax administration software, the First

Nations Gazette, service agreement negotiations support and dispute management.

Nine members of the Commission are appointed by Canada and one by the Native Law

Centre and include both First Nation and non-First Nation members. In sum, the FNTC

provides many functions and services similar to provincial ministries responsible for

regulating local governments. Through a memorandum of understanding with the

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the FNTC provides

advice to the Minister on the approval of by-laws enacted pursuant to the Indian Act.

8 Originally, the FMA included a First Nations Statistical Institute as well as the other three institutions.

However, FNSI never became operational. The sections of the FSMA, as it was then, pertaining to FNSI were removed and the legislation became the FMA.

ARC - 87

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 18 www.fiscalrealities.com

First Nations Financial Management Board (FMB) – The FMB provides First

Nations with a regulatory framework for financial management. This includes review and

approval of financial administration laws, creating and certifying First Nation financial

management standards, education and training, creating and reviewing First Nation local

and other revenue auditing and financial reporting standards and, if required, providing

intervention services to rectify issues related to improper application of local revenue

laws or debenture non-payment. The FMB provides confidence in First Nation financial

management systems to taxpayers, investors, and First Nation members. Six members

of the FMB are appointed by Canada, three members by the Aboriginal Financial Officer

Association, and include both First Nation and non-First Nation members. Together with

the FNTC, the FMB provides regulatory functions that are similar to the inspector of

municipalities within provincial governments.

First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA) – The FNFA is similar to the Municipal

Finance Authority of BC except it is based on voluntary participation. It helps to create

First Nation borrowing pools and then markets and issues debentures on behalf of that

pool. It secures these debentures with local or other (non-local) revenues.

The legislation and institutions created by the FMA changed the fiscal framework within

which First Nations entering into property taxation can operate. The most important

features include:

! First, and most important, the FMA created a system of regulatory oversight and

enforcement to support First Nations in improving accountability and transparency

beyond that possible through the commitment of a Chief and Council alone. One

important feature was the development of an enforcement regime that can impose

3rd party management (the FMB) in the event of non-compliance with regulation.

The regulatory system is supported by training and templates that encourage more

transparency in financial management and reporting. It is working to ensure that

both expenditures and revenues made out of the local revenue account are

consistent with local purposes. This allows First Nations to replicate, in many

important respects, the system used by other governments.

ARC - 88

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 19 www.fiscalrealities.com

! Second, the FMA expanded the range of revenue options available to First Nations.

Some of the most important expansions were to allow for Development Cost

Charges (DCCs) similar to those used by municipalities; hotel taxes to encourage the

development of tourism on First Nation lands; taxation for the provision of services,

business activity taxes and long term debentures. All of these new revenue options

will help First Nations overcome the challenge of needing to finance initial

infrastructure improvements in order to realize the potential of land development.

! Third, First Nations may now create laws that specify that, in the event of property

tax non-payment or a violation of land-use rules, individual’s property rights can

revert or be appropriated back to the First Nation. This resolves one of the most

difficult aspects of property taxation: clear enforcement powers.

! And finally, the FMA provides for a voice by taxpayers in tax decisions accompanied

by provisions to reconcile conflicts of interests and provide measures for facilitating

solutions, including mediation.

It is important to note that the initiative for the FMA came from First Nations and was

passed by Parliament with all party support.

First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)

First Nations are increasingly advancing major on-reserve projects that are: (1) large in

scale, (2) long term, (3) complex (i.e. involve First Nations, industry, provinces, and

multiple federal departments), and/or (4) have revealed regulatory gaps.

Accordingly, FNCIDA was introduced in the House of Commons on November 2, 2005

and came into force on April 1, 2006. It came about as an initiative led by the Squamish

Nation (British Columbia), Fort McKay First Nation (Alberta), Tsuu T’ina Nation (Alberta),

Carry the Kettle First Nation (Saskatchewan) and Fort William First Nation (Ontario).

FNCIDA was intended to develop First Nation economies, provide additional tools for

management of reserves, increase quality of life and allow First Nations to become more

self-sufficient.

ARC - 89

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 20 www.fiscalrealities.com

This optional, First-Nation-led legislation also received all-party support in Parliament. It

is an innovative piece of legislation designed to fill the regulatory gaps9 on First Nation

lands. In particular, it enables the federal government to develop regulations that allow

provincial legislation and regulations to apply on First Nation lands, with the concurrence

of the relevant province. These regulations would also allow First Nations to contract

with provincial regulatory bodies as required.10

It is important to note that the FNCIDA deals only with provincial regulatory legislation

and not local government regulation. The UBCM has expressed concerns regarding

regulatory and liability issues related to servicing reserve land and has requested federal

and provincial assistance in resolving these issues.11 There are likely to be cases where

First Nations will want to contract with local governments to extend local government

regulations to First Nation leasehold lands. Those kinds of agreements are already in

some service agreements and are done through contracts with the respective parties.

9 A regulatory gap creates uncertainty with respect to the process, time and costs associated with a project,

and can divert potential investors from First Nation reserve lands to off-reserve jurisdictions where an established and familiar regulatory framework exists. Off-reserve commercial and industrial activities are governed by comprehensive provincial statutes and regulations that the province updates periodically. However, the elements of provincial regulatory regimes that relate to land use do not apply to reserve lands. Source: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 2008, “Frequently Asked Questions - First Nations Commercial And Industrial Development Act,” Online at http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ecd/cid/faq-eng.asp.

10 Alcantara, C., Flanagan, T., & LeDressay, A., “Beyond The Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights,” McGill-Queen's University Press, 2010.

11 See UBCM Resolution 2012:SR1 “Service Agreements with First Nations and the Regulatory Gap” online at http://www.ubcm.ca/resolutions/

ARC - 90

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 21 www.fiscalrealities.com

First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA)

The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management was signed by the

Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and 13 First Nations in 1996, and

was ratified and implemented by Canada in the First Nations Land Management Act, in

1999. A First Nation signatory to the Framework Agreement can exercise land

management powers outside of the Indian Act by creating its own Land Code, approved

through a community ratification process and entering into a further Individual Transfer

Agreement with Canada. Participation is voluntary, and the Framework Agreement

creates an indigenous institution, the Lands Advisory Board, to help implement the

jurisdiction. 36 First Nations have operational land codes and a further 58 are in

development 12.

First Nations under the FNLMA can assume authority over many land management

jurisdictions. This means First Nations using the FNLMA can provide certainty to

investors with respect to a number of land management responsibilities including land

use planning, zoning, development processes, leasing and rules associated with land

usage. In particular, First Nations have the power to make laws in respect of the

development, conservation, protection, management, use, and possession of their First

Nation land.

The FNLMA also has the potential to significantly reduce the costs of doing business on

First Nation lands. Well crafted and administered land laws can provide transparency

and certainty to investors. The FNLMA can also allow First Nations to establish more

secure and tradable land tenure. Local administrations can provide these services and

reduce investor transaction costs.

The powers provided for in the FNLMA are common to all local governments in Canada

and are essential for First Nation governments that want to cooperate with adjacent

local governments and participate in regional district growth strategies.

12 Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, First Nations Land Management -

Operational and Developmental First Nations), on line at www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca

ARC - 91

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 22 www.fiscalrealities.com

First Nation Property Ownership Act (FNPOA)

FNPOA is a proposed piece of legislation for First Nations who want to opt out of the

Indian Act reserve land system, and have greater jurisdiction and title to their lands:

! First Nations would have the option (requiring majority support of members) to hold

the legal title to the land currently held by the Crown as "reserves" under the Indian

Act;

! Individual First Nations would have the power to transfer title in fee simple (with any

restrictions they would deem fit) to individuals without any loss of their jurisdiction

over the land despite any possible change in ownership;

! First Nation jurisdiction over First Nation Land would be substantially expanded;

! A number of important safeguards should be included to preserve the First Nation

character of the land; and

! The new First Nation Land would be registered in a "Torrens" style land registry

Recognizing the work and commitment of the proponent First Nations and the FNTC, in

January 2014, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance recommended

that the FNPO legislation be developed and passed in the near future. They

recommended that the federal government should “Move forward with a First Nations

property ownership act in order to provide Aboriginal Canadians with the same property

rights as other Canadians.”

The FNTC is pleased that it has received support for this initiative from the Minister of

Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. There are now twelve First Nations that have

indicated their support for FNPOA and ten of them are from BC. The FNTC believes that

this initiative, by providing First Nations with greater certainty over their own lands and

jurisdictions, will create economic benefit for First Nations, increase their stake in the

economic success of the province as a whole, and thus create better conditions for the

conclusion of Treaties and the resolution of other outstanding issues.

ARC - 92

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 23 www.fiscalrealities.com

Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics

The Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics (Tulo) was created by the First Nations Tax

Commission to operate as an independent non-for-profit educational and research

institution. It is governed by a three person board of Directors. The chair is Chief Mike

Lebourdais of Whispering Pines First Nations, the Academic Chair is University of Victoria

Professor Emeritus Robert Bish, and the Vice Chair is Bud Smith, the former Attorney

General of BC.

Tulo’s mission is to continue the education and training formerly provided by ITAB and

the University of Victoria and to expand its efforts to include a broader range of

activities to assist First Nations and their members to participate in the Canadian

governance and market systems. One specific objective is to help interested First

Nations build the legal, administrative and infrastructure frameworks to support markets

on their lands. Tulo currently delivers two certificate programs in partnership with

Thompson Rivers University and the First Nations Tax Commission – an eight course -

17 credit certificate in First Nation Tax Administration, and a six course - 18 credit

certificate in First Nation Applied Economics. Each course in these certificate programs

has the applied economics (APEC) designation within the Business School. Twelve of the

courses involve original curriculum only offered by Tulo-TRU that focus on specific First

Nation legal, administrative, infrastructure or communications requirements to reduce

the high costs of doing business on First Nation lands.

Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics Courses

First Nation Tax Administration First Nation Applied Economics

APEC 1610: Introduction to First Nation Taxation ENGL 1810: Business, Professional, and Academic Composition

APEC 1620: Establishing First Nations Tax Rates & Expenditures

ECON 1220: Introduction to Basic Economics

APEC 1630: Assessment and Assessment Appeals ECON 2630: Issues in Aboriginal Economics

APEC 1640: Administration – Tax Notices, Collecting and Enforcement

ECON 2640: Residential and Commercial Development on First Nation Lands

APEC 1650: Communications and Taxpayer Relations

ECON 2650: Investment Facilitation on First Nation Lands

APEC 1660: Service Agreements and Joint Contracts

ECON 2700: Economic Feasibility and Impact Analysis on First Nation Lands

APEC 1670: Development Cost Charges

APEC 1680: Capital Infrastructure & Debenture

ARC - 93

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 24 www.fiscalrealities.com

Financing

Courses are delivered in either an online or intensive format. Online courses are taught

online in a paced, cohort, tutor-led model over the space of eight to twelve weeks. They

are offered through Thompson Rivers University Open Learning. Intensive courses are

delivered in a classroom format. This format condenses the content from the full 8-12

week course into an intensive one-week session. Students attend the classes on the

Thompson Rivers University campus.13

The courses developed by Tulo and Thompson Rivers University offer a wide range of

course work in tax administration and economic development for First Nations. They

are the most comprehensive on these topics available and the most extensive in the

province.

Other Colleges and Universities

While Tulo-TRU courses serve First Nation students directly, a variety of courses in local

government administration and finance are also available to First Nation students, with

Northwest College and Capilano University specifically including First Nation content in

their local government courses. Other universities and colleges with courses directly

focussed on local government administration and service delivery for entering students

include Camosun College, College of the Rockies, and the University of Northern BC.

Their courses meet the requirements for the beginning certificate for local government

administrators from the provincial government Board of Examiners. Local government

courses for the more advanced certificates are offered by the University of Victoria,

School of Public Administration. Tulo is currently working with UVIC and possibly

Capilano to ensure transferability of courses and programs and to encourage more

students to register in these programs.

13 Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics. (2011). Online at http://www.tulo.ca/default.htm.

ARC - 94

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 25 www.fiscalrealities.com

VI. Emerging Policy Issues: Where do First Nations go from

here?

Institutions necessary for First Nations to take their place among Canadian governments

and participate in the market economy have been created over the past two decades.

The task is not complete, however, and both opportunities and problems remain. Some

of these are described below.

Implementing New Revenue Options

The FMA is providing First Nations with revenue raising options similar to other local

governments. In 2013/14, the first FMA development cost charges law (Tk’emlups te

Secwepemc), and the first FMA property transfer tax law (Tzeachten First Nation) were

approved by the FNTC.

FMA Development Cost Charges (DCCs) are similar to municipal DCCs and charge a one-

time tax on new developments to help finance infrastructure. The revenue is used for

specific projects identified in the community’s long term capital plan. Tk’emlups te

Secwepemc’s capital projects include a highway traffic interchange and a water

reservoir, and the DCC law will play an important part in funding their capital

infrastructure enhancements over the long term Having the capacity to impose DCC’s

will also facilitate service contracts with adjacent local governments where similar

treatment of new developments is desired.

Another revenue option for First Nations under the FMA is Business Activity Taxes which

includes collecting hotel taxes on reserve. Some First Nations in BC are interested in

developing a hotel tax that would duplicate the hotel tax collected elsewhere in the

Province. This tax would provide First Nations with needed revenues and also give them

a greater stake in the successful development of the recreational potential of British

Columbia. It would provide them with improved opportunities to participate in resort

development by ensuring that more of the resultant tax benefits are made available to

them.

ARC - 95

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 26 www.fiscalrealities.com

First Nations in BC are currently exploring other FMA revenue options including taxation

for the provision of services, and other business activity taxes.

In 2013, the first FMA long term capital borrowing law (Tsawout First Nation) was

approved. This law enabled the Tsawout First Nation to borrow $2.15 million through

the First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA)’s pooled debentures for the completion of

much needed upgrades to Tsawout’s sewage treatment plant. This means that Tsawout

will be able to access capital at costs similar to those for BC municipalities, over a longer

amortization period, and without requirements for collateral.

These new revenue options mean that First Nations have similar revenue raising powers

to local governments in BC and will hopefully begin to close the substantial

infrastructure gap that exists on First Nation lands compared to local governments.

Pricing Contracts for Services

An extensive range of service contracts between First Nations, municipalities and

regional districts is listed in Appendix A and Appendix B. Because of the variable rate

property tax system used in British Columbia those reserves with significant commercial

property may generate property tax revenue in excess of service costs. Those First

Nations with residential lands often do not generate sufficient revenue to cover service

costs when the First Nation uses the same tax rates as adjacent jurisdictions, which

most First Nations do.

ARC - 96

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 27 www.fiscalrealities.com

One result of equivalent tax rates is that those First Nations with commercial property

are reluctant to enter into service contracts based on tax revenues instead of actual

costs. At the same time, municipalities are reluctant to sell services on a tax revenue

equivalent basis when those revenues do not cover the costs of the services, as is the

case for reserves that are substantially residential unless that residential is of very high

value. The provincial government policy to exit the collection of school taxes on First

Nation lands has left many First Nations with additional resources to improve

infrastructure and obtain services beyond what could be provided with only the tax

equivalent of municipal or regional district and provincial rural taxes. At the same time

commercial reserves may generate large surpluses. The mismatch between property

tax revenues and service costs caused by the use of variable tax rates the same as

those used in adjacent jurisdictions is the root cause of these problems. They need to

be understood during the service contract process.14

The alternative to First Nations using the same variable tax rates as adjacent

jurisdictions is for First Nations to go to budget-based tax rate setting the same as is

done by municipalities. This would result in property tax rates being either higher or

lower than those in adjacent jurisdictions—the same as occurs between adjacent

municipalities. Because municipalities must add provincially determined school tax rates

to their municipal rates, this could mean that municipal rates may be higher than the

rates on reserves and many would regard this tax competition as unfair. However, it

must be recognized that for residences the Provincial Home Owner Grant (especially

where the carbon tax abatement program applies) off-sets most of the “school tax” and

for low-valued residences offsets part of their municipal taxes as well. There is no

obvious reason to make a change in the existing situation, especially as earlier research

also called into question whether the Federal government was paying the province too

much per student for the education of First Nation students.

14 Not everyone understands that when equivalent tax rates are used by a First Nation, the First Nation

residential taxpayers may actually pay higher property taxes than residents in the municipality because in some cases the First Nation may not implement the provincial Home Owner grant program or, more recently, the provincial carbon tax abatement program that uses the Home Owner grant program. Tax equivalency only results for non-residential properties unless the First Nation has implemented an equivalent Home Owner grant program that includes carbon tax abatement.

ARC - 97

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 28 www.fiscalrealities.com

Political Representation

Prior to First Nation taxation municipalities taxed reserve lands without being required to

provide services to those lands. At the same time the leaseholders occupying those

lands, as well as First Nation members, were allowed to vote in municipal elections.

Now that First Nations exercise jurisdiction over First Nation lands for both taxes and

services the issue of political representation needs to be revisited.

Two problems exist. First, in the past, First Nation leaseholders have had no voice in

First Nation policies on taxes and services on leasehold lands. However, it is in the

direct financial interest of the First Nation to maximize the value of leasehold lands and

that is done by providing the mix of services at reasonable tax prices to satisfy

leaseholders. In addition, the FMA provides First Nations with the jurisdiction to provide

a voice in decisions over leasehold lands. To fulfil this responsibility, the FNTC has

worked with taxpayers and interested First Nations to develop the legal and

administrative framework for greater participation of taxpayers in decisions that impact

them. In particular, the FNTC has developed a sample taxpayer representation law that

ensures that taxpayers have a forum for their input and a local mechanism to resolve

any disputes that arise. This model system is comparable and perhaps more inclusive

than the system developed to support treaties.

The second problem is that First Nation members and leaseholders on reserves within

municipal boundaries are allowed to vote in municipal elections even though none of the

municipality’s services, regulations, or taxes are provided to the reserve unless it is

through a contract with the First Nation government. 15

15 This problem was the topic of a discussion paper by the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee

entitled “Voting in Local Government Elections and Referenda by Residents Living on Indian Reserves” online at http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/aboriginal/LMTAC/LMTACDocs/VotingInLocalGovernmentElectionsAndReferendaByResidentsLivingOnIndianReserves%20_22-Sept-2011.pdf

ARC - 98

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 29 www.fiscalrealities.com

One solution to the voting in municipal elections by voters who do not receive its

services or pay its taxes would be to exclude these reserve lands from municipal

boundaries. This would be accomplished using an Order in Council to redefine the

municipality boundaries to exclude reserve lands. This would make absolutely clear that

First Nations are responsible for their residents, both First Nation and non-First Nation,

including arrangements for both services and taxes, and that municipalities are

governed by their citizens who also receive services and pay taxes. With this

clarification, the two governments can proceed to make joint service arrangements for

the mutual benefit of their citizens. It should be the policy of the provincial government

to respond favourably to requests from a municipal council that requests removal of a

reserve from within its legal boundaries. This leaves this as a local option where the

local council knows the relationship with the First Nation and makes the decision16.

While relations between First Nations and municipalities need the most clarification,

especially in regard to voting and representation, there are other situations where First

Nation members and leaseholders vote in general local government elections for an

electoral area director of a regional district outside of municipal boundaries. While this

issue has not been as prominent as the mismatch between representation and taxation

in reserves within municipal boundaries, the uncertainty of the relationship between

First Nations and regional districts poses some problems.

16 Removing a population from a municipality will also require adjustments within regional districts, where

the population may need to be assigned to an electoral area if the First Nation itself is not becoming a member of the regional district. Such new arrangements will need to be worked out between the regional district and the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development—the current incarnation of Municipal Affairs.

ARC - 99

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 30 www.fiscalrealities.com

Some Regional Districts provide services that are available to all residents within the

area. These include recreation facilities and libraries that both First Nation members and

leaseholders can make use of. One of the benefits of having First Nations as

participating members within regional districts would be that First Nations could

participate in the decisions and make financial contributions, including financial

contributions based on the assessed value of all lands on the reserve instead of only on

leasehold lands17.

One solution for service cooperation is for a First Nation representative to sit on the

Regional District committee that supervises that particular service and makes payments

for that service as if it were a member municipality. This provides for more flexibility in

service decisions, especially when capital investments are involved, than simple service

contracts. As most Regional District Committee decisions are simply ratified by the

Board, this would provide a useful approach to integrating First Nations into the

governmental system without going immediately to full Board membership (although

this option should be considered). This approach is especially relevant because First

Nations are unlikely to enter into full membership where regional growth strategies are

involved because they were not part of the regional growth strategy planning process.

However, the prospect of full regional district participation would be an incentive for

both First Nation and non-First Nation consideration of First Nation lands in future

growth strategy planning.

Other Tax-Service Relationships

In addition to matching representation to taxation, there are other tax-service

relationships that would benefit from resolution. The relationship of First Nations to

Hospital Districts is one example. Hospital Districts levy small property taxes to provide

for hospital planning and capital construction. Their governing board is usually the

same members as the directors of the regional district.

17 For First Nations to become full members of a regional district the aboriginal residents need to be

included. This could include having a member on the regional district. Regional districts do not levy property taxes on individual properties; they send a requisition to the member municipality with the price based on their tax rate applied to the tax roll.

ARC - 100

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 31 www.fiscalrealities.com

All First Nation members and leaseholders have access to hospitals across the province

and it would appear appropriate that First Nations collect and submit equivalent hospital

taxes to the hospital boards. First Nation members themselves are covered by transfers

from the federal to provincial government on their behalf, although it is uncertain what

is actually passed through to individual Hospital Boards.

One special issue in the lower mainland is TRANSLINK. Translink is essentially a

provincial government body that levies significant property taxes to provide

transportation throughout the Greater Vancouver Regional District and adjacent areas

that wish to become members. All residents benefit from their services. We are unaware

that any First Nations have been included in either the planning or governance of

TRANSLINK. Our recommendation would be that, if TRANSLINK would like to obtain tax

equivalent revenues from First Nations, their governing system would need to be revised

to include First Nation participation in governance at the same time. At present, such

participation is a decision to be made by each individual First Nation.

Planning and Mutual Boundary Coordination

Forty-five reserves are geographically within municipal boundaries - whether or not they

are included in the legal definition of the municipality. Others are adjacent to

municipalities. Physical proximity provides opportunities for cooperation for mutual

benefit, rivalry to attract business and residents, and the potential for conflict over

spillovers from developments within one government to the other. These situations are

no different from those of adjacent municipalities with one major exception—the

provincial government has created regional districts to deal with most of the boundary

issues that arise and many regional districts have growth strategies that have not

included First Nation participation.

ARC - 101

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 32 www.fiscalrealities.com

Regional districts were specifically designed to provide a forum to promote cooperation

on services and land use planning among local governments. While some regional

planning functions have been abandoned, members still create growth strategies and

have access to a provincially designated mediation-arbitration dispute resolution

function. First Nations lack these institutions in dealing with municipalities or regional

districts and although dispute resolution processes are included in many service

contracts, they are specific to that contract.

One of the problems that face First Nations wanting to engage in major economic

development is that they were never included in any planning or growth strategy

processes at either the municipal or regional level. One approach to boundary problems

is simple: First Nations will take impacts on adjacent governments into account to the

same degree those governments took First Nation interests into account in their past

decisions—a position that is certainly justified by past municipality and regional district

decision-making. There would, however, be mutual benefits by having more regular

processes for cooperation and dispute resolution. A problem is that no single senior

government has the jurisdiction to impose such an institutional arrangement. This is

because the provincial government creates the legal structure for municipalities, regional

districts and other local governments and it is the federal government and FNTC which

creates the legal structures for First Nations.

ARC - 102

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 33 www.fiscalrealities.com

Because the provincial government has already created institutional arrangements

specifically to facilitate cooperation among local governments—regional districts—the

obvious solution is for the provincial government to enter into discussions with First

Nations and local governments regarding First Nations membership on regional district

boards. Presently this option is open only to Treaty First Nations, but many First Nations

do not plan on entering into treaty arrangements. To exclude non-treaty First Nations

from potential regional district membership is to exclude most First Nations from this

option for the foreseeable future, including the largest and most economically developed

First Nations, which would benefit most from better coordination with other local

governments. The provincial government needs to revisit their policies on how First

Nation participate in regional districts to enable First Nations to coordinate their activities

with other governments at the local level for the mutual benefit of all parties18.

18 The inclusion of First Nations in regional districts will require some participation to be different from

municipal members. Most important is that First Nations would use the First Nations Finance Authority for debt finance instead of the Municipal Finance Authority. The regulatory system for First Nations under the FMA is similar in many ways to that for municipalities under Municipal Affairs but there are other differences that result from the FMA applying nationally instead of provincially.

ARC - 103

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 34 www.fiscalrealities.com

Treaties and FMA

The FMA represents a major step to provide the regulatory framework for First Nations

to participate in the Canadian federal-provincial governance system and to promote the

inclusion of First Nations and First Nation members in to the Canadian market economy.

Without certainty and stability for taxpayers, lenders, and investors, economic

development equivalent to that outside of reserves is simply not possible. These are the

most likely paths for improving conditions found on many First Nations. These

developments are also consistent with the objectives of all governments in treaty

negotiations. Many policies the provincial or federal government have requested be

included in treaties are also provided by the legislation, policies and regulations that

have evolved within the institutions encompassed by the FMA. These institutions are

also an appropriate option for First Nations within treaty agreements. It is much better

policy to provide treaty First Nations with the option of the FMA regulatory framework,

which mainly parallels provincial practices, than it is for each of them to operate their

own independent taxation system without a regulatory framework, as seems to be the

case after the treaty is signed.

The FNTC is currently working with interested First Nations, BC and Canada to develop a

regulation under the authority of the FMA to ensure that the services and products of

the FMA institutions remain available to First Nations with modern treaties.

ARC - 104

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 35 www.fiscalrealities.com

VII. Conclusions and Suggestions

First Nations continue to be successful in implementing property tax jurisdiction on First

Nation lands and providing services to their communities. There are now more than 150

taxing First Nations across Canada collecting a total of over $70 million19 each year and

62 of those are located in BC. Generally, service agreements are working well for both

First Nations and municipalities. Economic development is expanding, and assessment

values continue to rise, and in some cases even surpass those in adjacent municipalities.

Using local revenues as well as other revenue sources, First Nations are being able to

build and finance the infrastructure needed to support continued economic expansion.

Regulatory and educational gaps that have been hindering First Nation economic

development are being addressed by progressive First Nations institutions. First Nations

are increasingly participating in and benefiting from their regional economies. However,

there is still more to do that will benefit all governments providing local services and

their citizens.

This paper makes these suggestions to build on the recent positive history between First

Nations and local governments in BC and to continue the strong working relationship

between the UBCM and the FNTC:

1. Promote and support collaboration and cooperation between the Tulo Centre of

Indigenous Economics and universities that support the local government officers

association such as Capilano, Northwest and UVIC.

2. Develop processes to remove First Nations from municipal boundaries on the request

of First Nations to clarify service and representation responsibilities.

3. Consider a pilot project coordinated by the FNTC and UBCM with a non-treaty First

Nation to directly participate in regional district governance, planning, services and

infrastructure.

4. Consider other First Nation regional participation opportunities such as those

associated with hospital districts.

19 www.fntc.ca

ARC - 105

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development 36 www.fiscalrealities.com

5. The UBCM and the FNTC should work together to encourage the provincial

legislative changes necessary to ensure the FMA applies to First Nations in post

treaty environment so that they have access to institutional services and long term

infrastructure capital.

None of the changes proposed on these issues entail radical change; they all simply

continue the evolution of greater participation of First Nations in the British Columbia

local government system and Canadian federalism and they provide a base for raising

the productivity of First Nation lands and citizens within the Canadian market economy.

No one expects these changes to occur quickly. Two suggestions, however, should help.

First, the participation of First Nation and local government administrators in the same

classrooms at our universities will contribute to greater understanding of how similar

administration issues are for all small governments. Second, a renewed strong working

relationship between the FNTC and UBCM will provide the institutional support and

coordination necessary to implement these possible changes.

ARC - 106

October 2014

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development A I

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

VIII. Appendix A – Service Agreement Examples

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Services Cost

2 Agreement RD East Kootenay and Akisqnuk First Nation

2007 2012 ! Building and plumbing inspection Actual wages of the building inspector plus 38.5% (for benefits, administration and vehicle costs).

3 Agreement RD East Kootenay and Columbia Lake Indian Band

2002 2006 ! Fire Protection services Annual fee of $1,575.00 for the fire protection services provided by the Fairmont Hot Springs Volunteer Fire Department. Annual fee of $2,625.00 for the fire protection services provided by the Windermere Volunteer Fire Department.

4 Agreement RD East Kootenay and Tobacco Plains Band

2009 2013 ! 911 Emergency Dispatch Annual Operating and capital costs for 911 plus total number of dwellings in RDEK. This is multiplied by the number of dwellings on Reserve including Leased Reserve Land.

20 General Servicing Agreement

Central Saanich and Tsawout First Nation

2007 ! General Government Services ! 911 Emergency Dispatch ! Fire Protection ! Public Works ! Parks and Recreation ! Contingency Wages ! Reserves and Contingency Funds

$80,251 per year (adjusted slightly every year based on tax levy - 5% max increase per year).

22 Leaseholder Service Agreement

Campbell River and Campbell River Indian Band

2005 ! "Municipal services that are ordinarily provided to the City's residents."

! Maintenance and Repair is taken care of by the city.

72.5% of the property taxes using the city's tax rates. Water and Sewer: User fee is charged by the city for water and sewer services.

ARC - 107

October 2014

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development A II

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Services Cost

70 Services Agreement

Campbell River and Homalco Indian Band

1992 ! Domestic Water (repair and maintenance also)

! Sanitary sewage collection and disposal (repair and maintenance also),

! Fire protection

Water and Sewer: User fee is charged by the city for water and sewer services. Fire Protection: $90 per residential unit and $360 for non-residential (CPI increase every year).

71 Services Agreement

Central Okanagan RD and Westbank First Nation

2007 ! Mt. Boucherie Arena ! Johnson-Bentley Aquatic Centre ! Westside Seniors Activity Centre ! Westside Transit Services ! Handi-dart Transit ! Regional Parks ! Okanagan Basin Water Board ! Effluent/Water Disposal ! Regional Rescue Service ! 911 Emergency Number ! Crime Stoppers ! Victims/Witness Assistance ! Westside Sanitary Landfill

Net taxable values of lands and improvements in the First Nation multiplied by District service annual requisition. Landfill: Number of parcels in the First Nation multiplied by parcel tax (cost of district services divided by number of parcels in district electoral areas [Westside and Eastside]).

ARC - 108

October 2014

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development A III

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Services Cost

72 Service Agreement

Campbell River and Cape Mudge Indian Band

2004 ! Water ! Sanitary Waste ! Storm Water Management ! Fire Protection

Water: $10 per year for each building on-reserve. Collection, Treatment and Disposal of Sanitary Waste: $39 per year for each building on-reserve and $1700/year for sewer system maintenance (CPI increase per year). Water and Sewer: User fee is charged by the city for water and sewer services. Storm Water Management: Parcel tax (according to local government bylaw). Fire Protection: $80 per year for each residential building (CPI increase per year) and equivalent district property taxes multiplied by % of total district budget to fire services for every other development.

73 Service Agreement

Pitt Meadows and Katzie Indian Band

2007 ! Water supply ! Sanitary sewage disposal ! Fire Response

Water: $2057 per month. Disposal of Sanitary Sewage: Number of buildings on the Reserve Area multiplied by the rate per single-family residential building as the City charges. Fire Response: operating costs for previous year plus fire services capital costs from previous year divided by total population of Pitt Meadows plus Katzie Reserve multiplied by the total population of the Katzie reserve

ARC - 109

October 2014

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development A IV

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Services Cost

74 Service Agreement

RD East Kootenay and Akisqnuk First Nation

2007 2011 ! Building and plumbing inspection ! Dog control ! Emergency 911 ! Eddie Mountain Memorial Arena ! Parks and Trails ! Emergency response and recovery

program ! Fire protection ! Grants in aid ! Libraries ! Regional hospital district ! Regional parks ! Septage disposal ! Solid waste disposal ! Weed control

Sum of the levies made by RDEK for the services for that calendar year multiplied by the assessment of all non-native interests on-Reserve as determined by the First Nation.

75 Service Agreement

RD East Kootenay and Shuswap Indian Band

2007 2011 ! Dog Control ! Emergency 911 ! Eddie Mountain Memorial Arena ! Parks and Trails ! Emergency response and recovery

program ! Grants in aid ! Libraries ! Noxious weed control ! Regional Hospital District ! Regional Parks ! Septage Disposal ! Solid Waste Disposal

Sum of the levies made by RDEK for the services for that calendar year multiplied by the assessment of all non-native interests on-Reserve as determined by the Band.

ARC - 110

October 2014

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development A V

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Services Cost

76 Service Agreement & Bylaw

Tofino and Tlaoquiaht First Nation

2009 ! Water (maintenance and repair also) ! Sanitary Sewer Service

(maintenance and repair also) ! Fire Protection

Water: Rates, rents or charges as set forth in the Tofino Water Utility Rates and Regulation by-laws. Sanitary Sewer: Rates, rents or charges as set forth in the Tofino Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates and Connection Regulation by-laws. Fire Protection: Annual sum based on the assessed value for land and improvements. The parties (re-calculated annually based on assessed value of lands and improvements and fire protection costs).

77 Servicing Agreement

District of North Vancouver and Tsleil-Waututh Nation

2005 ! Discharge of storm water (maintenance and repair also)

! Discharge of Sanitary Sewage (maintenance and repair also)

! Provision of water (maintenance and repair also)

! Fire fighting protection

$484,852.15 per year and an increase or decrease in the Annual Service Charge equal to % change in total resident tax levy of the District on District ratepayers (single and multifamily residential properties) and a % increase or decrease in the Annual Service Charge equal to the number of additional completed units of any development as a % of the total number of units of any development existing the previous calendar year.

89 General Servicing Agreement

Central Saanich and Tsawout First Nation

2001 ! General Government Services (related to services)

! 911 Emergency dispatch ! Fire Protection ! Emergency Measures ! Public Works ! Parks and Recreation ! Contingency Wages ! Reserves and Contingency Funds

Property tax (rate multiplied by assessment) of all property classes multiplied by (Gross expenditure minus non tax revenue) divided by (General and debt tax levy plus Tsawout First Nation's contribution).

ARC - 111

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development B I

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

IX. Appendix B – Specific Service Agreements

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Cost

Fire Protection

9 Fire Protection Agreement Central Saanich and Tsawout First Nation 2007 (Number of band buildings/ [Number of band buildings + Total number of buildings within district and reserve]) x Cost

10 Fire Protection Agreement Enderby and Splatsin First Nation 2009 $11,457/year

11 Fire Protection Agreement Kamloops and Kamloops Indian Band 2008 Property Tax fee x parcels ($604,890 in 2009)

12 Fire Protection Agreement Kitimat and Kitamaat Village 1990 Fee schedule not attached

13 Fire Protection Agreement Kitimat Stikine RD Kitselas Band 2004 Not outlined clearly in agreement.

14 Fire Protection Agreement North Cowichan and Chemainus Band 2009 Building fee (per month per building; set out in schedule A till 2014) x Number of buildings

15 Fire Protection Agreement North Cowichan and Halalt Band 2009 Building fee (per month per building; set out in schedule A till 2014) x Number of buildings

16 Fire Protection Agreement North Cowichan and Penelakut Band 2009 Building fee (per month per building; set out in schedule A till 2014) x Number of buildings

17 Fire Protection Agreement Osoyoos Osoyoos Indian Band* 2002

Native non-residential Structures:

Assessed net taxable value of non-residential improvements for school and hospital purposes x 1000 x appropriate tax rate Non-native leased properties:

Net taxable assessed value of land and improvements for school and hospital purposes * 1000 x appropriate tax rate Dwelling structures:

Number of dwelling units x average Osoyoos residential dwelling assessment x appropriate tax rate

ARC - 112

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development B II

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Cost

19 Fire Services Agreement Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam Indian Band 1996

Assessed value of land and improvements on-reserve / Assessed value of land and improvements in city (incl. reserve) x Fire Dept. budget for that year.

88 Fire Protection Agreement Central Saanich and Tsawout First Nation 2001 (Number of band buildings/ [Number of band buildings + Total number of buildings within district and reserve]) x Cost

Sanitary Sewer

69 Sanitary Sewer Agreement Kamloops and Kamloops Indian Band 1996

Capital Development Fee (consists of a DCC and ACC) based on a schedule outlined in the agreement. Sanitary sewer user fee equal to a meter rate in the City Sanitary Sewer By-law. Services user fee of $200 per year for each dwelling unit (amended each year by CPI).

79 Sewage Treatment Service Agreement Penticton and Penticton Indian Band 2008

Operating Service Fee

Includes all direct and indirect operating costs and relevant admin costs and overhead during period of connection with services plus 10% of the total (recalculated every year). Capital Costs

Portion of the capital depreciation costs of the annual value of the Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant over it’s life allocated to the band based on contribution to the waste water stream during the period determined by the city (recalculated every year). This equals PIB Sewage Flows/(PIB Sewage Flows + City Sewage Flows) x capital depreciation (as set out in a schedule). Service Fee

An amount not exceeding 10% of the total costs of the Capital and Operating fees.

ARC - 113

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development B III

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Cost

80 Sewer Agreement Enderby and Splatsin First Nation 2009 $747.90/year

82 Sewer Service Agreement Kitimat Stikine RD Kitselas Band 2003

Annual user fee based on number of Household Equivalent Units on the Reserve connected to the RDKS x annual sanitary sewer user fee prescribed by the board of the RDKS in the Sewer Regulation Bylaw. Connection fee based on charge described in the Sewer Regulation bylaw x number of Household Equivalents (paid on every additional connection of any premises).

Transit

85 Transit Agreement Campbell River and Homalco Indian Band 2004 Not included

86 Transit Agreement Kitimat Stikine RD Gitxsan Government Commission 2005

45% of the local share of costs incurred by RDKS for the Hazelton Regional Transit System (apportioned to the four band councils).

87 Transit System Partnership Agreement

Kitimat Stikine RD Kitamaat Kitselas Kitsumkalum Kitimat Terrace 2006

Actual local net share of costs incurred by the RD. It is apportioned as follows: ! Kitamaat Village Council (15%) ! District of Kitimat (26%) ! Kitselas Band Council (11%) ! Kitsumlakum Band Council (10%) ! City of Terrace (18%) ! Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine (20%)

Wastewater Treatment Project

91 Wastewater Treatment Project Agreement

Capital Regional District and Beecher Bay Nation 2008 Not Included

92 Wastewater Treatment Project Agreement Capital Regional District and Songhees Nation 2008 Not Included

ARC - 114

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development B IV

Fiscal Realities Economists, Kamloops, BC www.fiscalrealities.com

CivicInfo # Agreement Participants Year Cost

Water

90 Water Servicing Agreement Central Saanich and Tsawout First Nation 2001 Charge calculated using the metered water rate, excluding any fixed charges set out in the Water Rates by-law.

93 Watershed Accord Sechelt Indian Band and Sunshine Coast Regional District 2003 Not Included

94 Water Agreement Lassertie Subdivision Enderby and Splatsin First Nation 2009 $231.00/year for each unit connected to the system.

95 Water Agreement Mabel Lake Road Enderby and Splatsin First Nation 2009 $488.50/year for each unit connected to the system.

96 Water Metered Agreement Enderby and Splatsin First Nation 2009 $470.25/year for each unit connected to the system and $2.15 per 4,500 litres that consumption exceeds 180,000 litres.

97 Water Servicing Agreement Central Saanich and Tsawout First Nation 2007 Charge calculated using the metered water rate, excluding any fixed charges set out in the Water Rates By-law.

98 Water Sewer Services Agreement Ucluelet Yuutluthaht Ucluelet First Nation 2008

One time capital payment of $354,710.36 towards Ucluelet’s sewer infrastructure. 50% of the monthly water rate charges to cover sewer treatment and disposal

N/A Sewer and Water Agreement City of Chilliwack and Tzeachten Indian Band 2006

Lessee must pay the city all costs incurred to design and construct the connections or an extension to the services system, operating fees (city engineer assesses based on previous year and adjustments), additional off-site costs, and other costs and expenses incurred by the city with respect to extensions. The city and the band agree that the tax sharing formula is 75% city and 25% band.

ARC - 115

First Nation Taxation, Services and Economic Development V www.fiscalrealities.com

X. References

Capilano University. (2011). About Local Government Programs. Online at

http://www2.capilanou.ca/programs/local-government.html.

Civic Info BC. (2011). CivicInfo Document Library: First Nations Service Agreements.

Online at

http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/134.asp?path=Library%5CFirst_Nations_Service_Agreements

Department of Justice. (2011). First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act (S.C.

2005, c. 9). Online at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.67/page-52.html#h-48.

First Nations Tax Commission. (2007). First Nations Real Property Taxation Guide.

Online at http://www.fntc.ca/dmdocuments/General/web_english_bw.pdf.

Flanagan, T., LeDressay, A., & Alcantara, C. (2010). Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring

Aboriginal Property Rights. McGill-Queen's University Press.

LMTAC. (2010). LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the

First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty

of Land Title Act.

Tsawwassen First Nation. (2006). Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement. Online at

http://www.tsawwassenfirstnation.com/treaty/April%2009%20-

%20Tsawwassen%20First%20Nation%20Final%20Agreement%20English.pdf

Tulo Centre of Indigenous Economics. (2011). Online at http://www.tulo.ca/default.htm.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities. (2011). First Nation Relations. Online at

http://ubcm.ca/EN/main/funding/first-nations-relations.html &

http://www.ubcm.ca/EN/main/resolutions/policy-areas/first-nations-relations.html

ARC - 116

METRO VANCOUVER’S

PROFILE OF FIRST NATIONS with Interests in the Region

JANUARY 2015

Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services

6.7

ARC - 117

ARC - 118

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 3

CONTENTS

First Nation Reserves and Treaty Lands in Metro Vancouver _________________________ 4

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations with Interests in the Region ___________________________________________________ 5

First Nations Located Within Metro Vancouver _____________________________________ 6

Katzie First Nation ___________________________________________________________ 6

Kwantlen First Nation _________________________________________________________ 8

Kwikwetlem First Nation _____________________________________________________10

Matsqui First Nation _________________________________________________________12

Musqueam Indian Band______________________________________________________14

Musqueam’s three reserves are located in Vancouver, Richmond and Delta. ________14

Semiahmoo First Nation _____________________________________________________16

Squamish Nation ___________________________________________________________18

Tsawwassen First Nation _____________________________________________________20

Tsleil-Waututh Nation ________________________________________________________22

First Nations without Reserve Lands _____________________________________________24

Qayqayt First Nation ________________________________________________________24

Hwlitsum First Nation ________________________________________________________25

First Nations in the Metro Vancouver Region ___________________________________26

First Nations, Tribal Councils, Treaty Groups and Associations Located Outside Metro Vancouver with Interests in the Region ___________________27

ARC - 119

4 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

FIRST NATION RESERVES AND TREATY LANDS IN METRO VANCOUVER

ARC - 120

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 5

METRO VANCOUVER’S PROFILE OF FIRST NATIONS WITH INTERESTS IN THE REGION

One of the Strategic Directions in the Metro Vancouver Board’s Strategic Plan is to “advance working relationships with First Nations.

This document is a resource guide and is intended to provide Metro Vancouver, its Board, committees, member local governments, as well as the general public with information on neighbouring First Nations as well as those First Nations outside Metro Vancouver that have interests within the region in order to help build and foster better local government-First Nation relations.

METRO VANCOUVER’S ABORIGINAL RELATIONS PROGRAM:

• Provides advice, information and support on First Nations’ interests that may affectcorporate programs, initiatives and projects

• Responds to pan-municipal First Nation issues

• Represents and supports Metro Vancouver local government interests at treatynegotiation tables and related activities, and

• Provides staff support to the Metro Vancouver Board’s Aboriginal RelationsCommittee and the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee on Aboriginal Relations(MTAC)

For additional information on Aboriginal Relations, please contact Metro Vancouver: 604.432.6200; icentre@metrovancouver.org

ARC - 121

6 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

CONTACT 10946 Katzie Road

Pitt Meadows, BC, V3Y 2G6

Tel: 604.465.8961 Fax: 604.465.5949

Email: treaty@katzie.ca

Web: www.katzie.ca

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Stage 4: Agreement-in-Principle

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION N.A.

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Susan Miller

Councillor Rick Bailey

Councillor Peter James

Councillor Robin Green

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 562

Living on own reserves 314

Living on other reserves 8

Living off reserve 240

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 335.2 Hectares

Katzie I.R. No. 1 (43.1)

Katzie I.R. No. 2 (23.1)

Barnston Island I.R. No. 3 (54.6)

Pitt Lake I.R. No. 4 (214)

Graveyard I.R. No. 5 (0.4)

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); Katzie First Nation Web Site; BC Treaty Commission

KATZIE FIRST NATION

First Nations Located Within Metro Vancouver

Katzie’s five Indian Reserves are located within four different Metro Vancouver jurisdictions: Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Township of Langley, and two Indian Reserves within Metro Vancouver’s Electoral Area ‘A’.

Katzie’s main reserve (Katzie Indian Reserve No. 1) is located in Pitt Meadows. The First Nation has the largest reserve in the region (Pitt Lake I.R. No. 4, 2.18 sq.km.) as well as some of the smallest reserves (Katzie I.R. No. 2, Barnston Island I.R. No. 3, and Graveyard I.R. No. 5, a cemetery).

The name “Katzie”, or q‘eyts’i, describes the action of a person’s foot pressing down on moss.

ARC - 122

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 7

KATZIE FIRST NATION RESERVES

KATZIE STATEMENT OF INTENT

BC Treaty Commission: www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Katzie_SOI_Map.pdf

ARC - 123

8 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

KWANTLEN FIRST NATION

CONTACT 23690 Gabriel Lane, PO Box 108

Fort Langley, BC, V1M 2R4

Tel: 604.888.2488

Fax: 604.888.2442

Web: www.stolotribalcouncil.ca

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Sto:lo Negotiations Stage 4: AIP

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION Sto:lo Tribal Council

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Marilyn Gabriel

Councillor Tumia Knott

Councillor Leslie Antone

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 255

Living on own reserves 68

Living on other reserves 31

Living off reserve 156

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 356 Hectares

McMillan Island I.R. No. 6 (181)

Langley I.R. No. 5 (140.6)

Whonnock I.R. No. 1 (34.4)

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); BC Treaty Commission

Three of Kwantlen First Nation’s six Indian Reserves are located within the Metro Vancouver region. The other reserves are located within the Fraser Valley Regional District including, Peckquaylis, a Reserve shared with Matsqui First Nation.

The name “Kwantlen” translates into “tireless runners.”

Kwantlen First Nation is affiliated with the Sto:lo Tribal Council.

ARC - 124

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 9

KWANTLEN FIRST NATION RESERVES

ARC - 125

10 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

KWIKWETLEM FIRST NATION

CONTACT 2-65 Colony Farm Road

Coquitlam, BC, V3C 5X9

Tel: 604.540.0680 Fax: 604.525.0772

Email: reception@kwikwetlem.com

Web: www.kwikwetlem.com

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Not involved in treaty negotiations

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION N.A.

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Ron Giesbrecht

Councillor Fred Hulbert Sr.

Councillor Ed Hall

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 85

Living on own reserves 35

Living on other reserves 4

Living off reserve 46

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 84.5 Hectares

Coquitlam I.R. No. 1 (2.6)

Coquitlam I.R. No. 2 (81.9)

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); Kwikwetlem First Nation Web Site; BC Treaty Commission

Kwikwetlem has two Indian Reserves: Coquitlam I.R. No. 1 is located in Coquitlam, at the mouth of Coquitlam River, where it drains into the Fraser River; and Coquitlam I.R. No. 2 is located further up the Coquitlam River in Port Coquitlam.

The name “Kwikwetlem” means “red fish up the river.”

ARC - 126

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 11

KWIKWETLEM FIRST NATION RESERVES

ARC - 127

12 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

MATSQUI FIRST NATION

CONTACT 2-65 Colony Farm Road

Coquitlam, BC, V3C 5X9

Tel: 604.540.0680 Fax: 604.525.0772

Email: reception@kwikwetlem.com

Web: www.kwikwetlem.com

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Sto:lo Negotiations Stage 4: AIP

Currently not in treaty negotiation

AFFILIATION Sto:lo Nation

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Alice McKay

Councillor Louis Julian

Councillor Brenda Morgan

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 262

Living on own reserves 100

Living on other reserves 17

Living off reserve 145

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 24.3 Hectares

Matsqui I.R. No. 4 (24.3)

* Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)

Matsqui First Nation has a total of four reserves as well as another shared with Kwantlen First Nation, but only one is located within Metro Vancouver: Matsqui I.R. No. 4 in the Township of Langley, where a majority of the First Nation members live.

The name “Matsqui” translates into “easy portage” or “easy travelling.”

Matsqui First Nation is affiliated with the Sto:lo Nation, an alliance of 11 First Nation communities in the Fraser Valley.

ARC - 128

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 13

MATSQUI FIRST NATION RESERVE

ARC - 129

14 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

MUSQUEAM INDIAN BAND

CONTACT 6735 Salish Drive

Vancouver, BC, V6N 4C4

Tel: 604.263.3261 Fax: 604.263.4212

Web: www.musqueam.bc.ca

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Stage 4: Currently not in treaty negotiations

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION N.A.

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Wayne Sparrow

Councillor Nolan Charles

Councillor Allyson Fraser

Councillor Gordon Grant

Councillor Howard Grant

Councillor Wendy Grant-John

Councillor Morgan Guerin

Councillor Tammy Ann Harkey

Councillor Robert Point Sr

Councillor Nora Stogan

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 1,355

Living on own reserves 661

Living on other reserves 121

Living on no band Crown land 1

Living off reserve 572

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 254.2 Hectares

Musqueam I.R. No. 2 (190.4)

Musqueam I.R. No. 4 (57.3)

Sea Island I.R. No. 3 (6.5)

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); Musqueam Indian Band Web Site; BC Treaty Commission

Musqueam’s three reserves are located in Vancouver, Richmond and Delta.

Musqueam’s main community is located in the marshy lowlands overlooking the north arm of the Fraser River (in the south-west corner of Vancouver) and the species of grass that once thrived on the foreshore may be the root of the Indian Band’s ancient name, X’muzk’i’um.

ARC - 130

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 15

MUSQUEAM INDIAN BAND RESERVES

MUSQUEAM SOI

Musqueam Indian Band: www.musqueam.bc.ca/sites/default/files/musqueam_regional_soi_with_reserves.pdf

MUSQUEAM DECLARATION

Musqueam Indian Band: www.musqueam.bc.ca/sites/default/files/musqueam_declaration.pdf

ARC - 131

16 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

SEMIAHMOO FIRST NATION

CONTACT 16049 Beach Road

Surrey, BC, V3S 9R6

Tel: 604.536.3101 Fax: 604.536.6116

Web: www.semiahmoofirstnation.org

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Not involved in treaty negotiations

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION Sencot’en Alliance of First Nations

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Willard Cook

Councillor Roxanne Charles

Councillor Joanne Charles

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 90

Living on own reserves 51

Living on other reserves 6

Living off reserve 33

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 129.1 Hectares

Semiahmoo I.R. (129.1)

* Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)

Semiahmoo First Nation has one reserve located in South Surrey, and is affiliated with the Sencoten Alliance of First Nations from Vancouver Island.

The Semiahmoo First Nation is named after the Semiamu Indians. The name is said to mean “half moon.”

ARC - 132

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 17

SEMIAHMOO FIRST NATION RESERVE

ARC - 133

18 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

SQUAMISH NATION

CONTACT PO Box 86131

North Vancouver, BC, V7L 4J5

Tel: 604.980.4553 Fax: 604.980.4523

Web: www.squamish.net

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Stage 3: Currently not in treaty negotiations

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Co-Chairs: Councillors Byron Joseph, Ann Whonnock

Councillor Alroy ‘Bucky’ Baker

Councillor Deborah ‘Debbie’ Baker

Councillor Richard ‘Ritchie’ Baker

Councillor Veronica Baker

Chief Ian Campbell

Councillor Carla George

Councillor Dennis Joseph

Councillor Joshua Joseph

Councillor Christopher Lewis

Councillor Danielle Mellish

Councillor Anthony ‘Tony’ Moody

Chief Richard ‘Dick’ Williams

Councillor Wilson Williams

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 4,119

Living on own reserves 2,250

Living on other reserves 176

Living on no band Crown land 1

Living off reserve 1,692

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 265.1 Hectares

Capilano I.R. No. 5 (155.6)

Kitsilano I.R. No. 6 (4.4)

Mission I.R. No. 1 (59.6)

Seymour Creek I.R. No. 2 (45.5)

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada(AANDC); Squamish Nation Web Site; BC Treaty Commission

On July 23, 1923, 16 Squamish-speaking tribes amalgamated to form the Squamish Nation “to guarantee equality to all Squamish and to ensure good government.” *

Today, Squamish Nation is the largest First Nation in the region in terms of the number of Reserves, combined area of Reserves, Registered Indian population, and total member population on its Reserves. Members of the Squamish Nation continue to live primarily at the North Vancouver reserves – Mission, Capilano and Seymour – and at four of nine

reserves in the Squamish Valley to the north.

ARC - 134

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 19

SQUAMISH NATION RESERVES

SQUAMISH STATEMENT OF INTENT

BC Treaty Commission: www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Squamish_01_SOI_Map.pdf

ARC - 135

20 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION

CONTACT 1926 Tsawwassen Drive

Tsawwassen, BC, V4M 4G2

Tel: 604.943.2112 Fax: 604.943.9226

Email: info@tsawwassenfirstnation.com

Web: www.tsawwassenfirstnation.com

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Treaty Effective Date: April 3, 2009

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION N.A.

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Bryce Williams

Executive Councillor Tony Jacobs

Executive Councillor Ken Baird

Executive Councillor Laura Cassidy

Executive Councillor Louise Ahlm

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 354

Living on Treaty Lands 183

Living on other reserves 8

Living off Treaty Lands 163

TSAWWASSEN LANDS (HECTARES) Total: 724.0

Tsawwassen Lands (724.0)

* Sources: Tsawwassen First Nation Membership Registry; Tsawwassen First Nation Web Site; BC Treaty Commission

On April 3, 2009, Tsawwassen First Nation ratified the first urban treaty in British Columbia, thereby reconciling the First Nation’s aboriginal rights and title and fulfilling its right to self-government. The treaty provides Tsawwassen with jurisdiction over its land base of 724 hectares. On that date, Tsawwassen also became a full member of Metro Vancouver (both the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Water District).

Tsawwassen Lands are located on the coast overlooking the Strait of Georgia, near the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. The name “Tsawwassen” means “facing the sea.”

ARC - 136

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 21

TSAWWASSEN LANDS

TSAWWASSEN STATEMENT OF INTENT

BC Treaty Commission: www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Tsawwassen_SOI_Map.pdf

ARC - 137

22 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH NATION

CONTACT 3075 Takaya Drive

North Vancouver, BC, V7H 2V6

Tel: 604.929.3454 Fax: 604.929.4714

Web Site: www.burrardband.com

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Stage 4: Agreement-in-Principle

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION Naut’sa mawt Tribal Council

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Maureen Thomas

Councillor Charlene Aleck

Councillor Deanna George

Councillor Travis George

Councillor Liana Martin

Councillor Jen Thomas

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 565

Living on own reserves 278

Living on other reserves 44

Living off reserve 243

INDIAN RESERVES IN MV (HECTARES)* Total: 110.7 Hectares

Burrard Inlet I.R. No. 3 (108.2)

Inlailawatash I.R. No. 4 (0.5)

Inlailawatash I.R. No. 4A (2)

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); Tsleil-Waututh Nation Web Site; BC Treaty Commission

Tsleil-Waututh, the “people of the inlet”, live near, but not quite on, Indian Arm looking out across the Burrard Inlet.

Tsleil-Waututh has three reserves. The main community is located on Burrard Inlet I.R. No. 3 in North Vancouver. Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s land base of 110.7 hectares is the second smallest of the First Nations located within Metro Vancouver.

ARC - 138

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 23

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH NATION RESERVES

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH STATEMENT OF INTENT

BC Treaty Commission: www.bctreaty.net/nations/soi_maps/Tsleil_Waututh_SOI_Map.pdf

ARC - 139

24 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

First Nations without Reserve Lands

QAYQAYT FIRST NATION

CONTACT Suite 105 – 3680 Rae Avenue

Vancouver, BC, V5R 2P5

Tel: 604.451.0531 Fax: 604.451.9231

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Not involved in treaty negotiations

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION N.A.

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Rhonda Larrabee

Councillor Robert Bandura

Councillor Rodney Bandura

Councillor Ronald Lee

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population 14

Living on own reserves 0

Living on other reserves 0

Living off reserve 14

* Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)

Qayqayt First Nation (New Westminster Indian Band) has the distinction of being one of the smallest First Nations in Canada (in terms of its membership) and does not have a land base.

ARC - 140

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 25

HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

CONTACT 2928 River Rd W.

Delta, BC, V4K 3N2

Tel: 604.940.0593 or 604.940.3857

Email: hwlitsum@yahoo.ca

STATUS OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS Stage 2: Currently not in treaty negotiations

TRIBAL ASSOCIATION N.A.

FIRST NATION OFFICIALS Chief Raymond “Rocky” Wilson

REGISTERED POPULATION AS OF DECEMBER 2014*

Total Registered Population N.A.

Living on own reserves N.A.

Living on other reserves N.A.

Living off reserve N.A.

* Source: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC)

Hwlitsum First Nation claims that its unofficial membership of 300 people includes a Registered Indian Population of 185 members. Although it is currently without Reserve lands, Hwlitsum’s traditional territory encompasses a large portion of the Metro Vancouver region, the Gulf Islands, and a portion of Vancouver Island.

ARC - 141

26 Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations

FIRST NATIONS IN THE METRO VANCOUVER REGION

First Nations within Metro Vancouver

Treaty Stage of the BC Treaty Process

Current Membership (Dec 2014)

Indian Reserve or TSL Area in Region (ha)

Indian Reserves in Region/of Total Reserves

Next First Nation Council Elections

KATZIE Stage 4: Active Negotiations

562 335.2 5/5 March 31, 2016

KWANTLEN Part of Sto:lo Tribal Council; not in treaty

255 356 3/6 (+ 0.5) N.A.

KWIKWETLEM Not in the BC Treaty Process

85 84.5 2/2 March 31, 2015

MATSQUI Part of Sto:lo Nation; not in treaty

262 24.3 1/4 (+ 0.5) June 30, 2016

MUSQUEAM Stage 4: not negotiating

1,355 254.2 3/3 January 3, 2017

SEMIAHMOO Not in the BC Treaty Process

90 129.1 1/1 December 27, 2016

SQUAMISH Stage 3: not negotiating

4,119 265.1 4/24 December 11, 2017

TSAWWASSEN Treaty First Nation Treaty: April 3, 2009

354 Treaty Lands

724.0

Treaty Lands April 20, 2016

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH Stage 4: Active Negotiations

565 110.7 3/3 March 31, 2015

QAYQAYT Not in the BC Treaty Process

14 0 0/0 N.A.

HWLITSUM Not in the BC Treaty Process

N.A. 0 0/0 N.A.

* Sources: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC); BC Treaty Commission

ARC - 142

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations 27

FIRST NATIONS, TRIBAL COUNCILS, TREATY GROUPS AND ASSOCIATIONS LOCATED OUTSIDE METRO VANCOUVER WITH INTERESTS IN THE REGION

ContactHUL’QUMI’NUM TREATY GROUP

(representing 6 member First Nations)

Mr. Al Anderson, Executive Director

PO Box 21028

Duncan, BC, V9L 0C2

Tel: 250.245.4660 Fax: 250.245.4668

Web Site: www.hulquminum.bc.ca/news

SENCOT’EN ALLIANCE

(representing 4 member First Nations)

Mr. Eric Pelkey, Coordinator

7728 Tetayut Road

Saanichton, BC, V8M 2C3

Tel: 250.652.9101 Fax: 250.652.9114

STO:LO NATION

(representing 11 member First Nations)

Chief Joe Hall, President

Bldg. #7 – 7201 Vedder Road

Chilliwack, BC, V2R 4G5

Tel: 604.858.3366 Fax: 604.824.5129

Web Site: www.stolonation.bc.ca

STO:LO TRIBAL COUNCIL

(representing 8 member First Nations)

Grand Chief Doug Kelly, President

2855 Chowat Road, PO Box 440

Agassiz, BC, V0M 1A0

Tel: 604.796.0627 Fax: 604.796.0643

Web Site: www.stolotribalcouncil.ca

TE’MEXW TREATY ASSOCIATION

(representing 5 member First Nations)

David Bob, Chairperson

13-D Cooper Road

Victoria, BC, V9A 4K2

Tel: 250.360.2202 Fax: 250.360.2206

Web Site: www.temexw.org

TSEYCUM FIRST NATION Chief Jack Vern

1210 Totem Lane

Sidney, BC, V8L 5S4

Tel: 250.656.0858 Fax: 250.656.0868

Web Site: www.tseycum.ca

ARC - 143

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, V5H 4G8

www.metrovancouver.org

JANUARY 2015

ARC - 144