First Nations - CF help, protests, solutions, residential schools, etc. (merged)

[foresterab]

I suspect you are right to a significant degree. No doubt many of the FNs are using the 'duty to consult' and 'free, prior and informed consent' obligations as a negotiation platform. At the end of the day, most, but not all, FNs have a price. The question becomes; is it a gift that keeps giving. Both levels of government sink a lot of money into public services and infrastructure to areas that, by their very nature, have no tax base to provide or even contribute.

While it is true that some companies have a successful track record in negotiating with FNs, the government can't use them as proxies to satisfy its obligations.

So the challenge for me....working in the Natural Resource fields for my career in generally rural northern towns...is where do you get the resources from? It's from the same trapping areas, hunting areas, and travel corridors First Nations have used for centuries but generally the resources and tax bases are located in the larger communities and/or corporate offices in major cities. What percentage of timber harvest timber dues, oil well royalties, or hydro dam payments received at the provincial capital go back to the areas where the resources come from...its a common comment from all remote northern residents regardless of background. Or for that matter the whole separate discussion over equalization payments in Canada.

30 years ago a cash payout was often the means to successful agreement. Meet the price and move on. But dumping a pile of cash, with no opportunities for the future, has often resulted in bigger problems long term due to drugs/gangs following the cash and now its' a real...mess.

Many of the communities now don't want a handout...they want a chance to compete professionally as equals regardless of heritage. I recall one chief telling me that he insisted that for every project they had to review ...in the hundreds annually at that time...included a chance to bid upon the work with their local construction company. They fully realized they were too small for some jobs - an acceptable outcome - but in his words "We live here and don't have to pay for industrial camps...of course we can undercut the competition on rates". 20 years later I was working with the same successful company on wildfires and they remain a small operation but dominant in the local market due to long term thinking.

To me the bigger question is how do we, as a nation, provide a situation that allows for economic hope and opportunity for all Canadians regardless of backgrounds. Some are easier to do than others...but none of it can be done free.

Key in my mind are the following:
1) Clean water. Frankly I'd cut most foreign aid until all Canadians have acceptable water. Can't have healthy communities if folks can't drink water. It's both a moral and ethical decision as a Nation to address.
2) High speed internet connections for each community. Don't care how but it's no longer an option and is now key for education, finance and communication. Amazing how much starlink alone has transformed bush operations in the last 5 years....and it's only getting more critical to have top end communications to be effective.
3) Address the housing aspect. This might need a revision to the Indian Act but somehow there needs to be a way to allow a member of a First Nation to have ownership of their personal home and invest in it...rather than be at the whim of the next election. With ownership drives maintenance which can in turn drive a need for trades which adds to local employment and economies. Change the maintenance budget and start getting more homes built to meet local needs.
4) Get access to communities via reliable roads and ports. Yes drugs and alcohol can enter a community easier...but so can groceries, building supplies, parts, equipment and a means to connect with others. Ring of Fire and many other Artic/near artic discussions are part of this.
5) continue the work of the infrastructure bank. I hate on one hand the concept of "handing out" money but a loan, to allow for long term investment into local industries, to be repaid from profits is I think one of the key parts. As investment pools within First Nations and over time future opportunities will require less government backing and a better long term path. Note this is not government choosing the projects but providing the backing to allow for market competitive long term investments.
6) Address the legislative red tape that exists within the consultation sector. Why does the federal government recognize different groups, in the same location, as the provinces? Why does consultation have been done multiple times on the same projects? Many thoughts and comments in this area but will need more coffee to address.

 

[Kirkhill]

"The Federalist Dance" on water legislation for First Nations ....

Alberta, Ontario don't want feds to reintroduce First Nations safe drinking water law

Environment ministers in Alberta and Ontario don't want the federal government to reintroduce the safe drinking water law for First Nations.

www.aptnnews.ca

Minister planning to table First Nations water bill despite provincial opposition

OTTAWA - The federal minister of Indigenous services says her government plans to reintroduce legislation to e...

lethbridgenewsnow.com

Ontario environment minister apologizes for 'confusion' over clean water bill letter

Ontario's environment minister has apologized to First Nation chiefs for any "confusion" his letter caused when he asked the federal government to not reintroduce a bill that would enshrine clean drinking water rights in law.But many First Nations are not accepting what they call a meaningless...

ca.news.yahoo.com

Meanwhile, on that whole big projects thing ....

First Nations launch legal challenge against Ontario, federal bills 5 and C-5

TORONTO - Nine First Nations in Ontario are asking a court to declare a pair of federal and provincial laws meant to fast-track infrastructure projects unconstitutional and are seeking an

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

First Nations Launching Major Constitutional Challenge to Kill Bill 5, the Ford Government's Megadevelopment Law and Bill C5, Canada's Megaprojects Law

/CNW/ - Several First Nations from Ontario have brought fast track litigation in Superior Court to Kill Bills 5 and C5 on the basis that they severely threaten...

www.newswire.ca

Chiefs of Ontario say Ottawa acting unfairly in major projects meeting Thursday

OTTAWA - The Chiefs of Ontario say Ottawa is levelling an unfair playing field for chiefs in a meeting planned with Prime Minister Mark Carney on Thursday to discuss the

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

The 9 First Nations in question are located all over Ontario ....

• Alderville
• Apitipi Anicinapek (used to be known as Wahgoshig)
• Aroland
• Attawapiskat
• Fort Albany
• Ginoogaming
• Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (AKA Big Trout Lake - current Chief spent a bit of time in jail with some others in the early 2000's protesting against proposed mineral exploration in the area - got sorted out by the company giving up its mining claims, and Ontario giving the company $5M)
• Oneida Nation of the Thames
• Wabauskang First Nation

Marked in stars here ....
View attachment 94659

I can see two lines of thought here:

1. We have resources and we want to see them used to our benefit if we are going to have to accept the damage to our land.
2. We have no resources. It's all right for those that will be able to make money from their resources. But what about the rest of us?

 

[lenaitch]

So the challenge for me....working in the Natural Resource fields for my career in generally rural northern towns...is where do you get the resources from? It's from the same trapping areas, hunting areas, and travel corridors First Nations have used for centuries but generally the resources and tax bases are located in the larger communities and/or corporate offices in major cities. What percentage of timber harvest timber dues, oil well royalties, or hydro dam payments received at the provincial capital go back to the areas where the resources come from...its a common comment from all remote northern residents regardless of background. Or for that matter the whole separate discussion over equalization payments in Canada.

30 years ago a cash payout was often the means to successful agreement. Meet the price and move on. But dumping a pile of cash, with no opportunities for the future, has often resulted in bigger problems long term due to drugs/gangs following the cash and now its' a real...mess.

Many of the communities now don't want a handout...they want a chance to compete professionally as equals regardless of heritage. I recall one chief telling me that he insisted that for every project they had to review ...in the hundreds annually at that time...included a chance to bid upon the work with their local construction company. They fully realized they were too small for some jobs - an acceptable outcome - but in his words "We live here and don't have to pay for industrial camps...of course we can undercut the competition on rates". 20 years later I was working with the same successful company on wildfires and they remain a small operation but dominant in the local market due to long term thinking.

To me the bigger question is how do we, as a nation, provide a situation that allows for economic hope and opportunity for all Canadians regardless of backgrounds. Some are easier to do than others...but none of it can be done free.

Key in my mind are the following:
1) Clean water. Frankly I'd cut most foreign aid until all Canadians have acceptable water. Can't have healthy communities if folks can't drink water. It's both a moral and ethical decision as a Nation to address.
2) High speed internet connections for each community. Don't care how but it's no longer an option and is now key for education, finance and communication. Amazing how much starlink alone has transformed bush operations in the last 5 years....and it's only getting more critical to have top end communications to be effective.
3) Address the housing aspect. This might need a revision to the Indian Act but somehow there needs to be a way to allow a member of a First Nation to have ownership of their personal home and invest in it...rather than be at the whim of the next election. With ownership drives maintenance which can in turn drive a need for trades which adds to local employment and economies. Change the maintenance budget and start getting more homes built to meet local needs.
4) Get access to communities via reliable roads and ports. Yes drugs and alcohol can enter a community easier...but so can groceries, building supplies, parts, equipment and a means to connect with others. Ring of Fire and many other Artic/near artic discussions are part of this.
5) continue the work of the infrastructure bank. I hate on one hand the concept of "handing out" money but a loan, to allow for long term investment into local industries, to be repaid from profits is I think one of the key parts. As investment pools within First Nations and over time future opportunities will require less government backing and a better long term path. Note this is not government choosing the projects but providing the backing to allow for market competitive long term investments.
6) Address the legislative red tape that exists within the consultation sector. Why does the federal government recognize different groups, in the same location, as the provinces? Why does consultation have been done multiple times on the same projects? Many thoughts and comments in this area but will need more coffee to address.

Agree. Over the past number of years, there has been a growing trends towards supporting FN industrial growth. It has been finally recognized that training, skills, self-determination have greater, value-added benefits than simply doling out money. In Ontario recently, a number of FN consortiums have been supported to partner in building power transmission corridors. It started out as a project to bring power to the FNTs themselves but has grown from that into general network expansion. I'm not sure I would call it all fair and open bidding with non-FN companies but it is what it is for now. For the very remote communities, on of the challenges is they are simply not sized or situated to be commercially viable. What industry or service can you hope to provide outside of your community when there are 300 of you and you are 2 hours air time from 'civilization'?

I, too, would like to see some manner of home ownership on FNTs. It would certainly require legislative changes but, even with that, would be a challenge for smaller, remote territories. I imagine it would entail the Crown changing from essentially a landlord to some kind 'lender-of-record'. The Crown could easily simply give the land to the band or the individual, but I have difficulty envisioning the viability of traditional mortgage lending with its determination of risk, asset allocation, etc., particularly with someone with little to no assets or income stream.

I don't know the text of any of the treaties, but suspect that very few, if any of them, speak specifically to the Crown providing 'western-style' housing, electricity, treated water supply and treated waste disposal. They have no doubt been provided, to whatever extent, over the years as a matter of policy choice.

I agree that probably the best course of action for isolated FNs is to give them roads to the outside world. The FNs themselves, at least in Northern Ontario, are still very much divided on the issue.

The disparity goes back to the beginning as a clash of cultures. Colonization and exploration got underway in earnest by nations that were in the throes of the Industrial Revolution, and came up against a series of hunter-gatherer societies. Simply in terms of the European social development timeline, the two sides were probably 5-600 years apart. Even if they were treated fairly, what could possibly go wrong.

I understand that FNs have a strong sense of stewardship towards the land, but I don't get the sense that they are clamouring in great numbers to go back to it. We all want a clean environment. They want to avoid industrial development coming and pooing in their backyard then walking away. My unanswered question is, at the end of the day when resource royalties, land claim settlements, industrial/commercial viability and competitiveness have all been established, will FNs still be treated like wards of the Crown or any other town in Canada trying to stay afloat. I suspect I will be long gone before that is sorted out.

 

[FJAG]

I, too, would like to see some manner of home ownership on FNTs. It would certainly require legislative changes but, even with that, would be a challenge for smaller, remote territories. I imagine it would entail the Crown changing from essentially a landlord to some kind 'lender-of-record'. The Crown could easily simply give the land to the band or the individual, but I have difficulty envisioning the viability of traditional mortgage lending with its determination of risk, asset allocation, etc., particularly with someone with little to no assets or income stream.

There are already provisions in the Indian Act that allow for the practical aspects of home "ownership" by band members. I worked with several FNs in Manitoba and the possession of band homes was vested in the FN itself through the FN's housing authority. Under the Indian Act (ss20-28) there is a set of provisions for "possession" of land (in practical terms home "ownership") which are fairly permissive and through which, together with the proper agreements between the FN and what was then DIAND (now ISC), the FN housing authority becomes the "landlord" and the band members, the "tenants." DIAND at the time was downloading and funding as much of the local services onto the FN administrations as possible.

One of the things I was working on was setting up of a set of landlord and tenant regulations for the housing authority. These included a system by which the right to possession, as defined under the Act, of a rented home would transfer to an individual band member once the costs of having built a given house had been paid off and how, thereafter, the possession of the house could be transferred back to the housing authority or to another band member. There had been major issues for the housing authority in collecting "rents" and in the maintenance of their holdings. It's a tough problem to crack. While the members who ran the authority were quite dedicated and wanted to work for the benefit of the band, the pushback and resistance by many of the band members themselves was quite strong. There was a strong desire by the band administration to transfer possession to individual band members but there was much less cooperation by "tenants" to pay their rents or maintain the homes.

 

[foresterab]

There are already provisions in the Indian Act that allow for the practical aspects of home "ownership" by band members. I worked with several FNs in Manitoba and the possession of band homes was vested in the FN itself through the FN's housing authority. Under the Indian Act (ss20-28) there is a set of provisions for "possession" of land (in practical terms home "ownership") which are fairly permissive and through which, together with the proper agreements between the FN and what was then DIAND (now ISC), the FN housing authority becomes the "landlord" and the band members, the "tenants." DIAND at the time was downloading and funding as much of the local services onto the FN administrations as possible.

One of the things I was working on was setting up of a set of landlord and tenant regulations for the housing authority. These included a system by which the right to possession, as defined under the Act, of a rented home would transfer to an individual band member once the costs of having built a given house had been paid off and how, thereafter, the possession of the house could be transferred back to the housing authority or to another band member. There had been major issues for the housing authority in collecting "rents" and in the maintenance of their holdings. It's a tough problem to crack. While the members who ran the authority were quite dedicated and wanted to work for the benefit of the band, the pushback and resistance by many of the band members themselves was quite strong. There was a strong desire by the band administration to transfer possession to individual band members but there was much less cooperation by "tenants" to pay their rents or maintain the homes.

I'm going off a fairly old memory now but I'm told the 6 nations in southern Ontario have solved part of this through a long term lease of reserve lands to reserve members. Leased land is eligible for a mortgage.

It's a similiar situation in the National Parks where residents don't have title...they have rights to the land via lease with the Government of Canada holding title. But you can still get a mortgage to buy a house and/or build in Jasper assuming you meet the rules involved (must work in the Park, etc.).

While this may work for some larger reserves I'm still not sure 100% what the solution is for smaller communities that measure in the 100's at best vs. the larger communities like Blood Tribe south of Calgary or the Mohawk reserves in Ontario.

 

[FJAG]

I'm going off a fairly old memory now

Me too. That was some thirty years ago and I've been away from my practice and Manitoba for almost twenty of those now.

I generally didn't do that type of work but in my articling year and as a first year lawyer had worked for a firm in Winnipeg that represented quite a few landlords which got me doing more landlord and tenant work than anyone wanted. That, and getting a Federal injunction on behalf of a candidate for Chief got me a foothold in some FN work. It was quite interesting, rewarding and frustrating at the same time.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some would argue that they occupied the "unoccupied" land before we occupied it, and they want it back. Others would argue that they were compensated for said land at the time of treaty. Some have argued that the compensation was insufficient and has been, or is being re-negotiated at 'more current' value. One problem is: do we go back to court every hundred years or so an 're-valuate' the compensation?

The value of modern health care alone exceeds the value of all the land in the Americas.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To me the bigger question is how do we, as a nation, provide a situation that allows for economic hope and opportunity for all Canadians regardless of backgrounds. Some are easier to do than others...but none of it can be done free.

Follow the same pattern for federal, provincial, and local government everywhere. No exceptions.

Key in my mind are the following:
1) Clean water. Frankly I'd cut most foreign aid until all Canadians have acceptable water. Can't have healthy communities if folks can't drink water. It's both a moral and ethical decision as a Nation to address.

Wells are no longer acceptable?

2) High speed internet connections for each community. Don't care how but it's no longer an option and is now key for education, finance and communication. Amazing how much starlink alone has transformed bush operations in the last 5 years....and it's only getting more critical to have top end communications to be effective.

You may not care, but many do. I have lost count of the number of people who think of themselves as "progressive" who, upon my explaining that their bills are high because services to remote Canadians are being subsidized, retort that they just want cheaper rates and other people can pay the cost of whatever it is to supply services.

3) Address the housing aspect. This might need a revision to the Indian Act but somehow there needs to be a way to allow a member of a First Nation to have ownership of their personal home and invest in it...rather than be at the whim of the next election. With ownership drives maintenance which can in turn drive a need for trades which adds to local employment and economies. Change the maintenance budget and start getting more homes built to meet local needs.

Homes depreciate. Without clear title to land that can legally be used as collateral and foreclosed, there is nothing.

4) Get access to communities via reliable roads and ports. Yes drugs and alcohol can enter a community easier...but so can groceries, building supplies, parts, equipment and a means to connect with others. Ring of Fire and many other Artic/near artic discussions are part of this.

This is backwards. First communities have to be economically viable. Then comes infrastructure. There are a few exceptions (eg. people who live along roads constructed for specific purposes).

5) continue the work of the infrastructure bank. I hate on one hand the concept of "handing out" money but a loan, to allow for long term investment into local industries, to be repaid from profits is I think one of the key parts. As investment pools within First Nations and over time future opportunities will require less government backing and a better long term path. Note this is not government choosing the projects but providing the backing to allow for market competitive long term investments.

Is this privatization of profit, socialization of risk? If so, it doesn't suddently become excusable depending on the ancestry of the borrower.

No government in Canada has money to spare to equalize everything for everyone.

 

[lenaitch]

There are already provisions in the Indian Act that allow for the practical aspects of home "ownership" by band members. I worked with several FNs in Manitoba and the possession of band homes was vested in the FN itself through the FN's housing authority. Under the Indian Act (ss20-28) there is a set of provisions for "possession" of land (in practical terms home "ownership") which are fairly permissive and through which, together with the proper agreements between the FN and what was then DIAND (now ISC), the FN housing authority becomes the "landlord" and the band members, the "tenants." DIAND at the time was downloading and funding as much of the local services onto the FN administrations as possible.

One of the things I was working on was setting up of a set of landlord and tenant regulations for the housing authority. These included a system by which the right to possession, as defined under the Act, of a rented home would transfer to an individual band member once the costs of having built a given house had been paid off and how, thereafter, the possession of the house could be transferred back to the housing authority or to another band member. There had been major issues for the housing authority in collecting "rents" and in the maintenance of their holdings. It's a tough problem to crack. While the members who ran the authority were quite dedicated and wanted to work for the benefit of the band, the pushback and resistance by many of the band members themselves was quite strong. There was a strong desire by the band administration to transfer possession to individual band members but there was much less cooperation by "tenants" to pay their rents or maintain the homes.

It is still a landlord-tenant relationship. Foresterab's reference to a lease arrangement would be a better step, but still highly restrictive. Neither do much to further the goals such as building equity and establishing pride of ownership. And, as mentioned, would likely work better on larger, urban-adjacent Territories.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is always the 999 year lease. It has been in use in the UK for a long time, back to the feudal era. It was particularly popular for crown holdings.

999-year lease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A 999-year lease, under historic common law, is an essentially permanent lease of property. The lease locations are mainly in Britain, its former colonies, and the Commonwealth.

A former colony, the Republic of Mauritius (The Raphael Fishing Company Ltd v. The State of Mauritius & Anor (Mauritius) [2008] UKPC 43 (30 July 2008)) established legal precedent on 30 July 2008 in respect of a 1901 'permanent lease' on the Thirteen Islands of St. Brandon (Cargados Carajos) which were adjudged as being a permanent grant by the Privy Council.

Apparently Queens Park is on leasehold land.

 

[foresterab]

It is still a landlord-tenant relationship. Foresterab's reference to a lease arrangement would be a better step, but still highly restrictive. Neither do much to further the goals such as building equity and establishing pride of ownership. And, as mentioned, would likely work better on larger, urban-adjacent Territories.

Found a reference to what I recall hearing years ago on the radio while driving around the woods. If I recall one of the biggest barriers under the Indian Act is that reserve land can not be sold...as it's held in trust for the First Nation. Hence why leases are the only option.

Via google this is what came up:

Six Nations of the Grand River uses long-term land leases, specifically "locatee leases" based on Certificates of Possession (CPs), to provide members with housing opportunities. These leases allow members to build and live in homes on reserve land, offering a form of property right and security akin to homeownership.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Certificates of Possession (CPs):
  These are a key mechanism for individual land tenure on reserves. They grant a band member the right to possess, use, and occupy a specific parcel of reserve land, including the right to build a house.
  
  
• Locatee Leases:
  When a CP is in place, the band member can lease the land to themselves or other band members, allowing for the construction of a dwelling. These leases are often referred to as "locatee leases".
  
  • Housing Security: CPs provide a more secure form of land tenure than simply living on reserve without one. They can also be used to secure financing for building a home.
    
    
  • Financial Benefits: While the land itself is held collectively, the improvements (like a house) and the lease rights are held by the individual member.
    
    
  • Potential for Development: CPs can facilitate the development of housing projects on reserve, as they provide a pathway for members to build and own homes.
    
• Six Nations Housing Program:
  Six Nations has a housing program that utilizes CPs and loans to help members build homes. The program provides financing for members who own at least half an acre of land on the reserve.
  
  
• Other Land Tenure Options:
  While CPs are a primary method, other land management approaches are also used on reserves, including land codes under the First Nations Land Management Act and other forms of leases.
• 
  

 

[FJAG]

Certificates of Possession (CPs), to provide members with housing opportunities.

That's exactly what we were working on in Manitoba; to create a system that brought some order and certainty to how it was used within the FN.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Nisga treaty is generally unpopular with other bands. Here is a notice of the sale in 2024 of property in the village due to unpaid taxes. What I don't know is what the band does for the people who can't/will not pay taxes. I suspect they house them in less desirable locations? Also the limited number of eligible bidder likley affects the housing price.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Found a reference to what I recall hearing years ago on the radio while driving around the woods. If I recall one of the biggest barriers under the Indian Act is that reserve land can not be sold...as it's held in trust for the First Nation. Hence why leases are the only option.

Via google this is what came up:

Six Nations of the Grand River uses long-term land leases, specifically "locatee leases" based on Certificates of Possession (CPs), to provide members with housing opportunities. These leases allow members to build and live in homes on reserve land, offering a form of property right and security akin to homeownership.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Certificates of Possession (CPs):
  These are a key mechanism for individual land tenure on reserves. They grant a band member the right to possess, use, and occupy a specific parcel of reserve land, including the right to build a house.
  
  
• Locatee Leases:
  When a CP is in place, the band member can lease the land to themselves or other band members, allowing for the construction of a dwelling. These leases are often referred to as "locatee leases".
  • Housing Security: CPs provide a more secure form of land tenure than simply living on reserve without one. They can also be used to secure financing for building a home.
    
    
  • Financial Benefits: While the land itself is held collectively, the improvements (like a house) and the lease rights are held by the individual member.
    
    
  • Potential for Development: CPs can facilitate the development of housing projects on reserve, as they provide a pathway for members to build and own homes.
• Six Nations Housing Program:
  Six Nations has a housing program that utilizes CPs and loans to help members build homes. The program provides financing for members who own at least half an acre of land on the reserve.
  
  
• Other Land Tenure Options:
  While CPs are a primary method, other land management approaches are also used on reserves, including land codes under the First Nations Land Management Act and other forms of leases.

Good stuff - thx for sharing that. Have to remember, though, that Six Nations is the “Toronto of reserves,” so to speak, when it comes to administrative capability. Smaller bands with smaller populations away from the mainstream’ll always be the head-scratching cases to consider for solutions. In my limited experience, I found The Ottawa Borg to be a better cookie-cutter machine, overall, than special situations for special cases.

I see the FN can loan $ based on a CP and/or lease, but I wonder if that’s enough for an off-reserve bank to issue a mortgage? Band can lend & still hang in to land if buddy defaults, but an outside bank still wouldn’t be able to foreclose on reserve land.

 

[lenaitch]

Six Nations is the “Toronto of reserves

Although benefitting from size, population, proximity to industry and a fair bit of arable land, they are not without their challenges. There is conflict between the elected Chief & Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council which view the elected council as colonially imposed. They also have pathetically low voter turnout which leads to allegations of 'family compact' type governance.