 |
 |
 |
 |
Print this page
 |
| Download Chapter (PDF) |
3.19 Land Management
- 3.19.1. Background
- 3.19.2. Indian Act Governance
- 3.19.3. Sectoral Governance Initiatives
- 3.19.4. Comprehensive Governance Arrangements
- 3.19.4.1. Comprehensive Governance Arrangement – Comparative Charts
- 3.19.5. BC First Nations’ Laws/By-laws in Force and Other Activities
- 3.19.6. Resources
3.19.1. Background
The issue of land and land management is very important to First Nations and is very sensitive, given the fundamental relationship between the land and the people. Historically, First Nations had land tenure systems in place that varied according to their culture and traditions. Today, creating a modern land tenure system that reflects the commonly held belief in the importance of holding lands collectively and the desire to create private interests in lands, within limits determined by the community, is controversial.
From a First Nation’s perspective, land management can be looked at based on whether lands are reserve lands or non-reserve lands. Reserve lands were originally managed and governed under the Indian Act and this remains true today, except where a First Nation has brought about change through comprehensive self-government arrangements or a sectoral land management initiative. Non-reserve lands in Canada are governed by the provinces under sections 92 (5), (12) and 109 of the Constitution Act 1867, but may remain subject to Aboriginal title.
Control of First Nation land by First Nation governments has been a priority of our leaders for many years and some of the greatest advances made in sectoral self-government arrangements are in the area of land management. The topic of what form of land management system to use in a First Nations context is somewhat controversial, because there are many ways to hold land and to govern it and there are many aspects to this jurisdiction, which may be exercised through the Indian Act, sectoral self-government arrangements, self-government arrangements, historical treaties or modern treaties. There are a number of ways in which First Nation lands are held and governed by First Nations. Sometimes this complexity and the numerous options can be confusing, especially as the options are continually evolving. Before deciding on the best option for your land management system, it would be beneficial to clearly understand how lands are managed (or mismanaged) under the Indian Act.
Lands reserved for Indians are governed federally under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867. Unless and until the relevant provisions or the whole of the Indian Act are replaced, this legislation remains the principle instrument governing the use and management of Indian reserve lands. Other applicable legislation includes Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c. 29) (SARA), Canada Lands Surveys Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. L-6) (CLSA), Canada Lands Surveyors Act (S.C. 1998, c. 14), etc., and other federal “laws of general application” that address aspects of land management and are not inconsistent with the Indian Act. Through the Indian Act, reserve lands are held by the Crown for the use and benefit of the band members for whom these lands were set aside. First Nations do not “own” reserve lands. Rather, reserve lands are an example of a bare legal title where title is in the Crown and in our case the use, occupation and beneficial interest in the land is set apart for us. It is important to note that these lands are not legally held “in trust.” Underlying bare title to reserve lands is usually held by Canada but, interestingly and not always that well appreciated, title is sometimes held by the province. In BC, title to most reserves is federally held. This is not always the case in other provinces, where bare legal title to most reserve lands rests with the province.
In addition to First Nations’ interest in reserve lands in BC, there remains, of course, the question of unextinguished Aboriginal title and our broader interest in traditional territories (including reserves) in most parts of the province. As recognized by the courts, provincial Crown title is encumbered by the Aboriginal title of the Nation that holds that Aboriginal title – sometimes referred to as the “proper” Aboriginal title holder. Unless a First Nation’s Aboriginal title has been addressed through agreement between a First Nation or group of First Nations and the Crown, this title remains a burden on Crown title. This gives rise to numerous legal obligations on the Crown to consult with and accommodate our First Nations when land and resource-use decisions are made by the Crown with respect to the lands subject to Aboriginal title. In situations where Aboriginal title remains unproven but there is a reasonable presumption that it exists, there is a duty to consult and accommodate our interests. Aboriginal title, when found to exist, would give rise to rights of use of the land and possession of these lands on the part of the First Nation. While Aboriginal title has not yet been established conclusively in the courts for any of our Nations, we are getting closer to our first declaration. The evolving recognition of our proprietary rights in land and associated rights to govern our lands because of our ownership provides our Nations with significant legal and economic power. Aboriginal title considerations should always be kept in mind when we look at the range of options for managing our lands and exercising our jurisdiction, whether on or off reserve.
As a governing body, having the proprietary interest in land (ownership) is very significant and cannot be over-emphasized. Whether through Aboriginal title or other title, where proprietary interests in land are established and where the owner of that land is a government (i.e., not an individual citizen), ownership of the land typically brings with it the right to make laws over that land. So while our discussion on land management in this chapter focuses on the administration of land and law-making with respect to land administration, from a broader perspective having ownership and control of land gives rise to a much broader jurisdiction than simple management of the land itself.
For reserve lands, independent of any consideration of Aboriginal title, whether underlying bare title to reserve lands is held by Canada or the provinces is not determinative of the administration of the lands. Regardless of which government has bare title, the federal government has jurisdiction to legislate on the management and administration of lands reserved for Indians, because of section 91(24) Constitution Act 1867. Reserve lands are governed by the federal Indian Act. The specific responsibilities for land management are set out in this Act. These responsibilities can be transferred to First Nations through appropriate legislation.
It is important to understand that the federal government’s administrative responsibility for reserve lands is multifaceted and operates at various levels. It is, therefore, helpful to consider the administration of land from different perspectives, depending on what aspect of land management you are discussing. Four aspects to look at are:
- land management from the perspective of what is typically provincial jurisdiction over the creation, transfer and registration of legal interests in land;
- the management and control of interests in land that typically are held by a government or a related governing entity for public purposes (e.g., vacant, recreation or park lands; government purpose lands such as offices, hospitals, schools, cemeteries, firehalls, police stations, etc.);
- zoning and land use requirements, which are typically delegated jurisdictions to municipal and local governments outside reserves; and,
- management, control and decision-making respecting private interests in land of citizens, which off-reserve is only undertaken by government in exceptional circumstances.
When deconstructing the current reality of Indian Act land management, this simple analytical framework is very helpful in sorting out how the community will move beyond the Indian Act, as these four aspects of land management can often be confused when making policy, drafting laws or establishing administrative systems.
At a fundamental level, land management is about making rules regarding the actual creation of legal interests in land. By this is meant both the ability to set the rules establishing a particular type of interest in land (e.g., a lease, licence, Certificate of Possession, mortgage, etc.) and the granting to a person of a recognized interest from the collective land base. For our Nations under the Indian Act, the Act establishes what types of interests are allowed on reserve and then gives the Minister the authority to grant those interests under certain circumstances, unless a Nation has taken over this jurisdiction under treaty, self-government or a sectoral initiative. Off-reserve, what types of interests are allowed in land is established by provincial or territorial governments pursuant to the rules set out in provincial or territorial land acts. It is worth noting that half of the First Nations in Canada do not follow the land provisions of the Indian Act and they do not have recognized jurisdiction that displaces the Act. This creates great uncertainty during this period of transition from colonial systems of land management to those ultimately based upon recognition of our own jurisdiction.
The second aspect of land management concerns how public lands are managed by the governing body. Assuming there are rules setting out what types of interests in land there can be and how new grants of these recognized interest are made, there are particular lands that are held by the government and managed by the governing body for the collective benefit of the citizens (public lands). The rules for managing public lands off reserve can be set out in many different pieces of legislation depending on the purpose for which the lands are being used (e.g., for a hospital, police station, fire protection, parks , etc.). On reserve, as with the private interests of citizens discussed below, Canada has assumed responsibility under the Indian Act for the management of these interests in land, and while the Band Council is consulted on decisions, final authority rests with Her Majesty (as represented by the Minister).
The third aspect of land management typically deals with local land use, services, zoning and so forth, regardless of the type of interest that may be established in the land. Off-reserve, provincial governments may establish the parameters for local jurisdiction in these areas, but the municipal or local government makes the decisions.
Fourthly, unique in Canada (with the exception of property of minors and incompetents) is the aspect of on-reserve land management where Canada has assumed responsibility under the Indian Act for administering on-reserve land transactions not only on behalf of the “band” with respect to public lands, but also with respect to individual interests of the members of the “band,” assuming such interests have been created under the Indian Act (e.g., Certificates of Possession, leases, etc.).
This land management role by Canada (both in respect to “band lands” and “member lands”) is a fiduciary requirement and reflects the legal status of First Nations and First Nations’ people as essentially wards of the state under the Indian Act. While this is old law and evolving, with the courts viewing our Nations and our members even under the Indian Act as “autonomous actors,” this reality in practice still underpins the basis of our relationship with Canada under the Indian Act: the Minister has ultimate responsibility for administering private interests created on reserve. Consequently, the Crown is formally party to all such transactions, which are invalid without the Crown’s consent. Under the Indian Act, interests created without consent of the Minister have no legal force and effect (e.g., leases to non-members commonly called “buckshee leases” or other interests in land established by a First Nation with respect to homes on reserve).
In treaty negotiations in BC, Canada’s and BC’s approach is to transfer ownership of lands to First Nations (both former reserves and settlement lands) and for the First Nation to hold such lands in fee simple. There are also options being presented for consideration outside treaty for First Nations to create the legal authority to grant fee simple in their reserve lands independent of existing provincial land tenure options for fee simple land off reserve or as modified, as in the BC treaty examples.
Each First Nation must determine the best model for holding ownership of its lands. However, it is important to realize that First Nations do not have to change the manner in which title to their reserve lands is held in order to take over the administration of their lands. Such administration includes the power to create interests in land (with the exception of granting the underlying interests or fee simple interests) or to make local municipal-type by-laws/laws. There are other examples of the ability to regulate land use independently of legal ownership and the ability to create interests in land. Municipalities, for example, have the power to regulate land use within their municipal boundaries even though most of the land under their jurisdiction is privately owned.
It is important that our First Nations have full power to administer their lands regardless of who has the underlying title in order to address the aspects of land management considered above. The question of what role the First Nation’s governing body will play in managing interests in land will arise in every community that considers how to replace INAC land management. For land held collectively by the First Nation (where there are no private interests), this may appear a simpler question – but each Nation will still need to determine what role its governing body will play. This role will vary depending upon the use to which the collectively held lands are put and the rules respecting the use.
The question of what role the governing body should play with respect to private interests in land may be more complicated. The fiduciary relationship created under the Indian Act with respect to land management and ownership of interests in land will need to be considered when questions arise as to of what role the Nation’s governing body should play when moving forward with respect to private interests (either previously created under the Indian Act or to be created in future). Under the Indian Act, Ministerial approval or an Order in Council is needed for private land transactions. When the First Nation takes over land management, the community will need to decide what role, if any, the First Nation’s government will play in private land transactions. Does the governing body want to assume the same role as Canada with respect to private members in dealing with their land interests on reserve? Community discussion will provide the answer and First Nation laws, rules and/or codes will need to be drafted to reflect the community’s choice.
Some Nations that have moved beyond the Indian Act to establish land administration systems under sectoral governance initiatives have kept a similar role for their governing body as the Minster previously discharged for land transactions. Other Nations have not continued this fiduciary relationship with their citizens. This is usually for economic reasons of efficiency and appropriateness and to allow private enterprise to come into play, with individuals being responsible for their own decisions regarding their interests in land. While the rules may change for future land management activities and transactions, there is also a need to look back. A community will need to consider who manages and looks after existing interests where the Minster is a party to the transaction on behalf of either the “band” as a whole or an individual member.
There is also the broader duty and fiduciary relationship as a result of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. By enacting the Indian Act and assuming land management of reserve lands, the Crown takes on legal responsibilities and can be held liable for business decisions with respect to land use (see Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2. S.C. R. 335).
When a Nation considers how it is going to manage its lands, regardless of the mechanism it will use to do so (e.g., Indian Act, sectoral governance initiatives or comprehensive governance arrangements inside or outside treaty), it will need to take into account the different aspects of land management and make policy decisions accordingly. What type of interests in lands does the Nation want to create and what rights are associated with those interests? Who can hold those interests and how are they acquired? Once interests in lands are created, how are they registered and transferred? Should special consideration be given to interests that might be created for non-members (e.g., whether those interests are lesser or the same as for citizens/members and under what conditions)? These are a few examples of questions a Nation will have to address in considering land management. The pros and cons of the options will be a subject of much debate in your community and with Canada, and, where appropriate, BC. It is also important to remember that the issues, perspectives and options for land management continue to evolve.
Every Nation should consider creating a critical path that incorporates fundamental policy questions on land administration systems that reflect the needs of its community. It should also have an understanding of how Indian Act land management works and what changes are needed. There are now a number of options for First Nations on a continuum of change. These options include assuming powers of the Minister under the Indian Act, through a variety of sectoral governance initiatives to ultimately addressing these matters in comprehensive arrangements. Comprehensive arrangements under treaty provide an option to change the nature of land management and the ways lands are held, both former reserve lands and new treaty settlement lands.
It is sometimes hard to determine the difference between the options and this section will help you navigate the evolving options. There are a number of resources to help you on the issue of how title to First Nations’ lands should be held, what powers of administration are required and what role the First Nation government will play in the management of land transactions.
This is a complicated legal area and good legal advice is essential to understanding your options. Once fundamental questions about land tenure have been discussed and policy considerations developed, how you create interests will have an impact on the use and value of your lands.
3.19.2. Indian Act Governance
Under the Indian Act, there are no options for First Nations to assume jurisdiction over the category of land management that is typically carried out by provincial governments through their Land Acts – that is creating and establishing interests in land. The only jurisdiction for First Nations relates to local government matters such as zoning under section 81 Indian Act (by-laws) as discussed in Section 3.20 - Land and Marine Use Planning. With respect to managing interests in land that are created under the Indian Act, there is the opportunity to manage these interests under delegated authority (section 53 and 60 of the Indian Act).
There are 32 sections (approximately 25%) of the Indian Act that deal with lands and land management. Some sections deal with the same matters addressed off reserve in provincial legislation (i.e., granting interests in land and registering them, etc.), while others deal with the local government and management of lands (i.e., band by-law over zoning, construction of buildings, etc.) found in section 81 of the Indian Act. Some First Nations have used these powers to enact a local government or municipal-type system of land-use regulation for planning and zoning purposes. This aspect of land management is also considered in Section 3.20 - Land and Marine Use Planning.
Other sections of the Indian Act deal with the role of the Minister with respect to considering and approving land transactions on behalf of either the “band” or the individual members. In this regard, the Minster has the power to delegate responsibility under sections 53 and 60 of the Indian Act.
53. (1) The Minister or a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose may, in accordance with this Act and the terms of the absolute surrender or designation, as the case may be,
(a) manage or sell absolutely surrendered lands; or
(b) manage, lease or carry out any other transaction affecting designated lands.60.(1) The Governor in Council may at the request of a band grant to the band the right to exercise such control and management over lands in the reserve occupied by that band as the Governor in Council considers desirable.
(2) The Governor in Council may at any time withdraw from a band a right conferred on the band under subsection (1).R.S., c. I-6, s. 60.
The administrative powers delegated under sections 53 and 60 do not go to the core jurisdiction powers needed by a government over its lands, as there is no provision in the Indian Act for a First Nation to determine what type of interests can be established in its land and no recognition of customary systems of tenure. Interestingly though, there is one way in which customary possession can be recognized. Under section 42(2), the Governor in Council may make regulations providing that a deceased Indian who at the time of death was in possession of land in a reserve shall, in such circumstances and for such purposes as the regulations prescribed, be deemed to have been at the time death lawfully in possession of that land.
It is important to recognize that the authorities under sections 53 and 60 are not governmental in nature (i.e., they do not confer law-making authority), but rather confer administrative responsibility for land transactions on behalf of the Crown. This administrative power only addresses aspects of land decision-making, which in the case of an individual off reserve is strictly a private matter with little or no government involvement. Typically, private land transactions are subject to land use laws and two parties cannot contract out of the application of laws such as zoning laws. This is so even if the government is a party to the lease.
However, in the absence of First Nations by-laws or other law in respect of land use on reserve, there have been attempts by INAC or First Nations to regulate land use through contractual provisions in leases. That is not the best way to govern lands. You can get away with this approach to some degree where the “band” itself is the landlord or the lessor, but not where a “band” citizen and third party may be entering into a lease. It is not surprising that leases have been used in this way as people try to make the best of the Indian Act system. There are now, however, other options.
3.19.3. Sectoral Governance Initiatives
A number of land management-related sectoral governance initiatives have been developed by First Nations and Canada in partnership, including the Framework Agreement and the First Nation Lands Management Act and the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act. These initiatives deal only with reserve lands. Others are proposed, including a First Nations Property Ownership Act. These are considered below.
Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management
Background: The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management was signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and 13 First Nations on February 12, 1996. A 14th First Nation was added shortly afterwards. It applies only to those First Nations that sign on to it. To date, 58 First Nations across Canada are signatories of which 34 have passed their land code through the community ratification process. The First Nations that signed the Framework Agreement established a Lands Advisory Board to support those First Nations seeking to develop Land Codes and implement land management regimes. The Board’s work includes developing model Land Codes, laws, documents, agreements and management systems as well as assisting First Nations in developing their capacity.
The Framework Agreement sets out the principal components of a land governance regime as an alternative to the Indian Act. It is not a treaty and does not affect the treaty or other constitutional rights of the First Nation signatories. The Framework Agreement was ratified and implemented by Canada through the First Nations Land Management Act (FNLMA), assented to on June 17, 1999.
The Framework Agreement can provide your Nation with the option to exercise jurisdiction and manage reserve lands outside the Indian Act. The first step is to pass a Council resolution indicating your community’s wish to become a signatory of the Framework Agreement. This resolution is forwarded to the First Nations Land Advisory Board (LAB), composed of representatives of First Nations who have signed the Framework Agreement. The LAB is involved in processing the resolution and submitting it to the Minister of Indian Affairs. If Canada agrees, an adhesion document is signed by the First Nation and the Minister, making the First Nation a party to the Framework Agreement. It should be noted that Canada’s acceptance is subject to the availability of federal funding. This is not just with respect to funds available to the First Nation, but also to INAC to undertake the federal responsibilities under the Framework Agreement, such as surveys and environmental assessments, etc.
A signatory to the Framework Agreement does not exercise any land management. As a signatory, the First Nation develops a Land Code and other documents specified in the Framework Agreement, which are then submitted to the community for approval. If approval is given, the First Nation has ratified the Framework Agreement and its Land Code becomes effective, replacing the land management provisions of the Indian Act. INAC provides developmental funding to a First Nation that is a signatory of the Framework Agreement to support the development of a Land Code. This Code is not approved by the Minister of Indian Affairs, but is reviewed by an independent third party, called a “verifier,” to ensure it complies with the requirements of the Framework Agreement by addressing the necessary subjects. The verifier does not “approve” the Land Code and has no say in the actual wording. The Land Code must be ratified by your First Nation members in a referendum.
The Land Code provides for the following:
- identification of the reserve lands to be managed by the First Nation (called “First Nation land”);
- general rules and procedures for the use and occupation of these lands by First Nation members and others;
- financial accountability for revenues from the lands (except oil and gas revenues, which continue under federal law);
- procedures for making and publishing First Nation land laws;
- conflict of interest rules;
- a community process to develop rules and procedures applicable to land on the breakdown of a marriage;
- a dispute resolution process;
- procedures by which the First Nation can grant interests in land or acquire lands for community purposes;
- delegation of land management responsibilities; and
- procedure for amending the Land Code.
In addition to the Land Code, there is a need for an agreement with Canada to address the transfer of management and jurisdictional responsibility to your First Nation. This is called the Individual Transfer Agreement and will cover:
- The legal description of the reserve lands to be managed by the First Nation;
- The specifics of the transfer of the administration of land from Canada to the First Nation; and
- The operational funding to be provided by Canada to the First Nation for land management.
The Individual Transfer Agreement must be ratified by the adult members of the First Nation along with the Land Code. All members of the First Nation who are at least 18 years of age, whether living off reserve or on reserve, have the right to vote on the Land Code and the Individual Transfer Agreement. The procedure for the community ratification process is developed by the community in accordance with the Framework Agreement.
The verifier must also confirm that the community ratification process and Land Code are consistent with the Framework Agreement. The verifier will monitor the community ratification process to ensure that the rules identified in the community’s ratification procedure document are followed. It should be noted that the Land Code and Individual Transfer Agreement will not be considered approved if less than 25% plus one of all eligible voters voted to approve them.
Lands and natural resources that were previously managed under the Indian Act and now will be under a Land Code remain reserve lands and remain lands reserved for the Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Under the Framework Agreement, the current Indian Act tax exemption on reserve lands, and personal property situated on reserve, will continue.
In addition, First Nation’s lands will be protected as lands cannot be sold unless other lands are received by the First Nation in exchange and made reserve lands. This protection does not exist under the Indian Act. Third party powers to expropriate reserve land are gone. Only Canada, in very limited circumstances, can expropriate reserve lands once a Land Code is in effect.
First Nations operating under Land Codes have full legal status and the powers needed to manage and govern their lands and resources. This power covers both the administrative management aspect and the governance or jurisdictional elements of land management. First Nations exercising their jurisdiction not only have municipal-type powers over areas such as zoning and land use planning, but also provincial-type powers, such as the establishment of rules under which interests are created, transferred and registered and environmental protection and assessment. While First Nations are not able to sell their lands, they are able to lease or develop their lands and resources, subject to any limits imposed by their own community in its laws and Land Code.
A First Nation has the power to make environmental protection and environmental assessment laws once its Land Code is in effect. Further agreements are expected between First Nations and Canada for funding these laws and for harmonization with other provincial and federal environmental laws. This is discussed in Section 3.10 - Environment.
A First Nation has the authority under the Framework Agreement and FNLMA to appoint justices of the peach to enforce and adjudicate offences under these First Nation laws. If no such justices are appointed, First Nation laws are enforced through the provincial courts.
The Framework Agreement provides the First Nation with all the powers of an owner in relation to its First Nation land, except for control over title or the power to sell it. The First Nation's Council can manage land and resources, as well as revenues from the land and resources, in accordance with its Land Code.
After the Land Code has been ratified, existing third party interests in land on a reserve, such as leases, continue in effect under the Land Code, according to their original terms and conditions. No new interests or licences may be acquired or granted except in accordance with the Land Code.
It is important to note that even after a First Nation takes over land management responsibility, Canada will remain liable for and will indemnify a First Nation for losses suffered as a result of any act or omission by Canada or its agents that occurred before the Land Code came into effect. After that date, the First Nation is responsible for its own acts or omissions in managing its lands.
Under the Framework Agreement, a First Nation also has the power to acquire private interests in lands, by expropriation, for community purposes upon payment of fair compensation to those whose interests are affected. Rules for expropriation will be set out in the Land Code or in a First Nation law.
A Land Code must make provision for a First Nation to report to its members and to be accountable for its management of lands, resources and revenues. A First Nation is also required to enact a law within 12 months of passing the Land Code to address the rights of spouses in First Nation lands subject to the Land Code if their marriage breaks down. These rules and procedures will ensure the equality of women and men. This is not currently addressed under the Indian Act. While this seems like an additional requirement for First Nations making a Land Code, it must be recognized that it is the intention of Canada to enact legislation that will, in absence of First Nation laws on the matter, set rules for the division of reserve land interests and related matters in the event of marriage breakdown. Enacting a matrimonial property law under your Land Code jurisdiction will exempt your First Nation from the federal regime.
The First Nation has the power under the Framework Agreement and FNLMA to make laws establishing its own processes for dealing with disputes in relation to its lands and resources. These processes can include mediation, neutral evaluation and arbitration. This can be a very significant exercise of First Nation jurisdiction. Today, there is no authority under the Indian Act for dispute resolution. As many First Nations are aware, land disputes between individuals over reserve lands go to outside courts and the process is expensive, slow and outside community values.
For disputes between a First Nation and Canada on the meaning or implementation of the Framework Agreement, there are provisions in the Framework Agreement to resolve the dispute without having to go to court.
Under the Indian Act, Canada maintains a registry of interests in reserve lands. Because of the change in land management and jurisdiction when a First Nation enacts a Land Code, it was necessary to have a more modern and effective registry system available to First Nations with Land Codes. A regulation was made by Canada creating the First Nation Land Registry Regulations. This regulation ensures that interests created under a Land Code in First Nation Lands are registered in priority. This important feature provides certainty to financial institutions and investors that does not exist under the Indian Act land registry (ILRS), which is based mostly on policy. The registry is also electronic and has other features that expedite land transactions and represent a significant improvement on the ILRS.
The Framework Agreement does not authorize laws relating to the taxation of real or personal property. Such laws can be made separately pursuant to section 83 of the Indian Act or under the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act. The First Nation’s Council can continue to make by-laws under section 83 of the Indian Act where such powers do not conflict with those in the First Nations Land Management Act.
There are currently 58 First Nation signatories of the Framework Agreement and an additional 80 are on a waiting list. All First Nations wanting to use this modern governance tool should be able to do so and it is hoped that the administrative and funding issues that have limited access to this initiative can soon be resolved.
Checklist:
- Becoming a signatory to the Framework Agreement: Your Council will pass a resolution requesting to be a signatory to the Framework Agreement and forward it to Minister and Lands Advisory Board. Subject to the availability of funding from INAC and INAC agreeing to accept your Nation into the process, your Chief will sign the Framework Agreement.
- Developing a Land Code: Your community will create a working group or lands committee composed of First Nation citizens to develop a draft Land Code. Support is provided by the Lands Advisory Board. The draft Land Code is checked by a verifier to ensure compliance with the Framework Agreement.
- Negotiation of Individual Transfer Agreement with Canada: This Agreement addresses the transition to First Nation land management, identifies the land being transferred, outstanding environmental issues and funding for new land management responsibilities.
- Ratification Process: You will together with the verifier develop the ratification process for the Land Code and Individual Transfer Agreement that meet the requirements of the Framework Agreement.
- Surveys and Environmental Assessment of Lands: There has to be confirmation of boundaries and an assessment of the environmental condition of the lands. This is done at Canada’s expense and additional surveys or assessments may be required.
- Ratification: The Land Code and Individual Transfer Agreement are ratified by your members.
- Implementation: Upon coming into force on the date set out in the ratified Land Code, your First Nation will take over management and administration of your reserve lands.
First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA)
Background: The First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (S.C. 2005, c. 53), and as amended by the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (S.C. 2010, c. 6), was developed and led by a group comprising Squamish and other First Nations that saw the need for more comprehensive regulation of major commercial and industrial development on their reserves. The Act allows the federal government to produce regulations for complex commercial and industrial development projects on reserves. Essentially, it provides for the adoption of regulations on reserves that are compatible with provincial rules off reserves. This compatibility with existing provincial regulations increases certainty for the public and developers, while minimizing costs.
Federal regulations are only made under FNCIDA at the request of participating First Nations. The regulations are project-specific, developed in cooperation with the First Nation and the relevant province, and are limited in application to the particular lands described in the project. These regulations allow the federal government to have the province carry out the monitoring and enforcement of this new regulatory regime via an agreement between the federal government, the First Nation and the province. The initiative allows First Nations to opt into the federal legislation and come under the federally enacted regulations.
The regulations will be specific to the First Nation involved and while they may be a model for others, each First Nation will have to address its particular circumstances in a separate regulation made under FNCIDA. Given the involved process and the First Nation investment necessary to complete a proposal, it appears this initiative is best suited to major commercial developments. Finally, Canada will have to be convinced of the need to proceed with the regulation for your First Nation and to expend the necessary resources.
Checklist:
Step 1: Project Identification and Proposal
- Prepare the formal written proposal and include supporting documentation.
- Obtain a Council Resolution supporting the development of regulations under FNCIDA.
- Hold exploratory project discussions with the INAC Regional Office and other key stakeholders (e.g., outside investors).
Step 2: Project Review and Selection
- Work with the INAC Regional Office to complete a legal risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
- Work with the INAC Regional Office to complete an evaluation of the proposal, including a detailed review of the project, the regulatory needs, the feasibility of using FNCIDA, the level of community support, and more.
Step 3: Negotiation and Drafting
- Start preparing the project work plans, specifying required resources, key milestones, plans for engaging stakeholders (who, when and how), strategies for risk management and target timelines.
- Assist INAC with preparing the materials required for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the federal Treasury Board to approve the regulations.
- Negotiate and sign the tripartite agreement with the federal government and the province.
- Negotiate and put in place all required land tenure instruments.
Step 4: Administration, Monitoring and Enforcement
- Start construction of project facilities and infrastructure.
- Start operation of the project.
- Assist the province in its administration, monitoring and enforcement of the regulations, as set out in the tripartite agreement.
Detailed Description of Each Step:
Step 1: Project Identification and Proposal: This step involves the First Nation developing a formal written proposal on the project and providing documentation as set out by INAC. In addition, there must be a Council resolution requesting the development of regulations for your First Nation under FNCIDA. The tasks to be completed during this step are:
- The First Nation identifies an industrial or commercial project that needs regulations to advance, and for which regulations under FNCIDA are possible.
- The First Nation, the INAC Regional Office and other key stakeholders (e.g., outside investors) engage in initial exploratory discussions. The aim of the discussions is to determine if further analysis is needed to establish project eligibility under FNCIDA (see Step 2 for the list of 5 questions that form the criteria for using FNCIDA).
- The First Nation prepares the required documentation, seeks to build the necessary skills and capacity to complete the process and secures community support.
- The First Nation passes a Council resolution supporting the development of regulations under FNCIDA.
The project proposal sets out all project information supporting the application, including:
- A general description of the project;
- A legal description of the land that will be used;
- Confirmation that the land is reserve land, or that it is proposed as an addition to reserve (ATR) with an indication of the current stage of the approval process;
- A description of how the proposed lands will be used;
- A general proposal for key lease issues (e.g., term, rent, royalties, licences);
- An identification of any possible contentious issues;
- Information on potential project risks, including potential loss of economic opportunities should the project not proceed;
- An evaluation of the existing or desired regulatory framework;
- A confirmation of community support or a timeline to obtain it;
- An indication of provincial readiness to negotiate;
- A proposed timeline; and
- An analysis of the economic and other benefits.
Step 2: Project Review and Selection: The second step (Project Review and Selection) starts when the INAC Regional Office receives the Council resolution requesting the development of regulations under FNCIDA, the formal written proposal and the appropriate supporting documentation. Most of the tasks required during this step are to be completed by INAC with help from the First Nation. INAC may request additional information or clarification from the First Nation, as it assesses and evaluates the submission. At this stage, the First Nation will be in a position to work with the relevant INAC Regional Office to complete a legal risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, identifying the cost of developing regulations and the potential for loss of economic development opportunities if the project does not proceed. The First Nation will also work with the INAC Regional Office to evaluate the proposal based on established criteria set out in this section. Essentially, INAC undertakes a thorough evaluation that includes a detailed review of the project, its regulatory needs, the feasibility of using FNCIDA, the level of community support, the risks inherent in the project and an analysis of costs and benefits.
The criteria INAC uses when reviewing a formal proposal to develop regulations under FNCIDA can be summarized by the following questions. If the answer to each of these questions is yes, then the project qualifies in principle for FNCIDA.
- Do the lands involved in the project meet all requirements (legal, policy, etc.) so that INAC is able to issue land tenure?
- Is there currently a lack of regulations to deal with environmental or health and safety issues, regardless of the degree of possible impact?
- If there is a lack of existing regulations, is it preventing economic development and is there no other regulatory regime that could be used to implement the project?
- Have all other alternatives for regulating the project, including the Indian Act, been considered and ruled out, and is using FNCIDA the only possible approach?
- Is the province supportive in principle of the project and will it be willing to play a role in the administration and enforcement of the regulations that would be developed under FNCIDA?
This step concludes when INAC decides whether or not to proceed to the next step – the negotiation and drafting stage – and whether or not to allocate resources to developing the regulations.
Step 3: Negotiation and Drafting
This step starts once INAC has given its approval for the project proposal. Once approval is granted, detailed project work plans can be developed.
These plans set out:
- The resources required to implement the project
- A list of key milestones
- Plans for engaging stakeholders (who, when and how)
- Strategies for risk management, and
- Timelines.
Throughout this step, there will be close communication and consultation between the Government of Canada, the First Nation and the provincial government. This is required to develop the three important project-specific documents: the regulations; the tripartite agreement between the Government of Canada, the First Nation and the provincial government; and the land tenure instruments.
The tripartite agreement is signed by the government of Canada, the provincial government and the First Nation. INAC will be preparing guidelines and a template that will help the government of Canada, the First Nation and the provincial government negotiates a tripartite agreement. The guidelines will outline the tools for establishing effective working relations with provincial governments and First Nations and compliance with Orders in Council, including the roles of signing authorities and program authorities. The template for tripartite agreements includes:
- A project description;
- The project's technical requirements and processes;
- The responsibilities of all parties to the agreement;
- The key performance indicators
- A dispute-resolution process;
- The prosecution arrangements;
- A framework for operational management, including administration, monitoring and enforcement;
- The project's costs and resources; and
- Other items as required by the specific project.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and cabinet approve the regulations. The regulations are prepared by INAC in consultation with the First Nation. The package – including the regulations, a communication plan, a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, and a briefing note – is submitted to cabinet for consideration. Communication with the First Nation will continue throughout the various stages of the regulatory development process. This step concludes when the lease and tripartite agreement are executed and the regulations come into force.
Step 4: Administration, Monitoring and Enforcement
Once the lease and tripartite agreement have been executed and the regulations are in force, Step 4 begins. This step deals with the ongoing administration, monitoring and enforcement of regulations, agreements and land tenure instruments during the life of the project. This includes the construction of facilities and infrastructure and other project operations. Ultimately, it also includes the decommissioning of the project facilities and the reclamation of the lands used in the project.
Based on the tripartite agreement, and any other agreements or contracts signed, monitoring and enforcement required under the regulations will be done by the provincial government. Provincial governments have a lot of experience in the administration, monitoring and enforcement of off-reserve industrial activities. Carrying out these tasks on the reserve in a way agreed to by the First Nation and the government of Canada is a natural extension of their work. Because of the provincial government's expertise, their role in administering, monitoring and enforcing the regulatory regime will improve both operational efficiency and transparency, and reduce costs.
Issues arising during the Administration, Monitoring and Enforcement step may necessitate negotiation and drafting of amendments to the regulations and/or tripartite agreement. In such cases, as with the project approval process, approval and allocation of resources would be required. Step 3, the Negotiation and Drafting step, would apply to any such amendments.
Proposed First Nations’ Property Ownership Act Initiative (FNPOA)
There is also a legislative proposal being promoted through the First Nations’ Tax Commission addressing one aspect of land management, namely the creation and registration of interests in reserve lands through a national land registry framework designed around a Torrens system. This proposal is referred to as the First Nations’ Property Ownership Act Initiative. All of the sectoral initiatives and comprehensive governance arrangements dealing with land management provide First Nations with the choice as to whether to create private property interests in reserve lands. Indeed, modern treaty arrangements provide a Nation the ability to grant fee-simple interests and use the provincial Torrens system (with limitations on some interests being registerable only to citizens). However, the proposed First Nations’ Private Property Act seeks to regularize how interests on reserve are established and recorded in a new national registry. It is proposed that there be established a national First Nations’ institution to serve this purpose and that the ability to grant fee-simple interests on reserve be broadened to cover all persons. The details of this initiative are limited as no proposed legislation has been drafted and the initiative has drawn considerable criticism. Some of the criticisms stem from concerns that FNPOA would duplicate work already under way through other sectoral initiatives, and that it only considers one aspect of land management from a particular political perspective on land tenure. The stated objectives of this initiative are to unlock “dead capital” by creating the opportunity for fee simple ownership on reserve, backed by a modern Torrens land registry, with the aim of capitalizing on the land’s tremendous economic potential.
3.19.4. Comprehensive Governance Arrangements
All the comprehensive governance arrangements provide recognition of First Nation law-making power over land management, irrespective of the legal manner in which the lands are held. All such arrangements set out provisions that recognize a Nation’s powers to address, under its own policy framework, the four aspects of land management set out above. Subject to any specific provisions in a Nation’s self-government agreement, all comprehensive governance arrangements enable the self-governing Nation to (1) create interests in its lands (including private interests) and to register them (2) manage and administer its public lands, (3) establish a framework for local zoning and municipal control, and (4) establish a framework to govern citizens’ private land transactions and the appropriate role of the governing body in private land transactions.
Because of the differences in the way lands are held under treaty arrangements and self-government arrangements outside treaty, there are important distinctions with respect to how land interests are created and registered.
Arrangements outside modern treaties: In the non-treaty model at Westbank, the Nation’s reserve lands continue to be held by Canada under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867. However, the Self-Government Agreement provides that Westbank has all the rights, powers and privileges that Canada has as an owner in respect of those lands. The Westbank arrangements restrict the surrender of Westbank lands and limit federal expropriation powers. Under the Westbank arrangements, while the Nation can create private interests in Westbank lands, it cannot grant an interest in fee simple, as the lands are not held by Westbank in fee simple.
For Sechelt, where lands are held as fee simple lands under section 92 of the Constitution Act 1867, but where the lands still remain “lands reserved for the Indians” under section 91(24) (see section 31 of the Sechelt Indian Self-Government Act), the Nation also has full authority to manage its lands as an owner in accordance with its Constitution and the Sechelt Indian Self-Government Act.
The Westbank Self-Government Agreement allows for registration of interests in Westbank lands in an alternate registry created by agreement between Westbank and Canada. Pursuant to this power, Canada made the Westbank First Nation Land Registry Regulation under the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act to create a land registry system, which includes priorities for interests created in Westbank lands.
Sechelt is somewhat different in that its lands are still federal section 91 (24) lands and are registered under the Sechelt Indian Self-Government Act in the Indian Act land registry (see section 27 Sechelt Act). This will not change until or unless Sechelt Indian Band under section 28 of the Sechelt Act and Sechelt laws chooses to register certain parcels of Sechelt lands in the provincial system. Sechelt Indian Band has passed laws of this nature and identified some parcels of land that are registered in the BC land registry. The remainder of Sechelt lands continue to be registered in the federal Indian lands registry.
Arrangements under Modern Treaties: Under existing modern treaties, First Nations own their land in fee simple, but there are rules regarding this fee simple that are not the same as for fee simple held by a person in accordance with the provincial land tenure system established under the Land Act. These treaty provisions have been described as “fee simple plus.” As owners of the land and in accordance with the self-governing powers set out throughout the treaty, modern treaty Nations govern over their lands, including through the laws made with respect to the administration of the land (land management). Ownership of lands and resources is cited by proponents of modern treaties as one of the most important tools of self-government at their disposal. This is because the source of authority for First Nations’ laws emanates from the proprietary interest in the land and, as such, can supersede, displace or, in the event of a conflict, override provincial and federal laws. BC First Nations under modern treaties are relying on the fact that they have ownership of their lands and resources, and increasingly are using the powers of governance associated with ownership of lands and resources to regulate and manage a wide variety of matters independently of other governments and in addition to the specific powers of government set out in their treaty arrangements.
Individual interests in First Nation lands under the treaty arrangements could theoretically include private fee simple interests held by a non-citizen. The Nisga’a under Nisga’a law have permitted individual fee simple interests that are registered in their own land registry and have done so for a small area of land in each of their villages. Under the Tsawwassen Nation Final Agreement, Tsawwassen First Nation, in coordination with the provincial land management system, has given Tsawwassen fee simple interests under Tsawwassen law to their members (citizens), and these interests are registered in the BC land registry with restrictive covenants that they cannot be transferred to non-members.
Treaty models such as Tsawwassen are based on the principle that the First Nation may move some lands into a land management model or system that is tied to the provincial government and utilizes its Torrens registry system. If the treaty First Nation does not integrate its land management system with that of the province, it has the jurisdiction to create its own lands system, including the establishment of its own land registry.
3.19.4.1. – Comprehensive Governance Arrangement - Comparative Charts
| Underlying Title to Lands: | |
Sechelt |
Reserves under the Indian Act are transferred to Sechelt as fee simple.(s. 23)
The Sechelt Lands remain section 91 (24) Constitution Act 1867 lands as “lands reserved for Indians.”(s. 31) |
Westbank |
Title remains with Canada and the lands are lands reserved for Indians within the meaning of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act 1867. (Part X, s. 87) |
Nisga’a |
Nisga’a Lands are held as fee simple lands by the Nisga’a Nation and are Constitutionally protected. (Ch. 3, s. 3) |
Tsawwassen |
Tsawwassen Lands are held as fee simple lands by Tsawwassen First Nation under the Final Agreement which is a constitutionally protected treaty. (Ch. 4, s. 2) The Tsawwassen state this is a section 35 Constitution Act 1982 form of title and is constitutionally protected under that section.
Under Tsawwassen Law, Tsawwassen can create Tsawwassen Fee Simple Interests, which are subject to conditions, restrictions, reservations, and provisos set out in Tsawwassen law. This includes restrictions on ownership. (Ch. 4, s. 3) |
Maa-nulth |
Lands are held as fee simple lands by the Maa-nulth.
Constitutionally protected. (s. 2.3.1) |
| Registration of Interests in Land: | |
Sechelt |
Sechelt Lands can be registered either in the Reserve Land Register kept under section 21 of the Indian Act or where the Council makes a law authorizing it registration of interests in specified parts of Sechelt Lands can be in the BC land registry system. (s. 27) |
Westbank |
Westbank Lands may be registered in registry established by Westbank, under the Indian Land Register or under a new registry established by Canada. (Part X, s. 96) Currently Westbank Lands are registered in a Federally run self-government land registry under the Westbank Land Registry Regulations. |
Nisga’a |
May be registered in accordance with Nisga'a law or in the provincial land registry but not the Indian land registry or another registry created by Canada. (Ch. 11, s. 50(a)) Currently register in accordance with the Nisga’a Land Registry Act. |
Tsawwassen |
Tsawwassen Lands are registered in the provincial land registry in accordance with Tsawwassen laws and the Final Agreement. (Ch. 5, s. 1) |
Maa-nulth |
Registered in the provincial land registry in accordance with Maa-nulth laws and the Final Agreement. (s. 3.3.1) |
| Law Making Powers in Relation to Land Management: | |
Sechelt |
Sechelt jurisdiction over land management is contained in the Sechelt Self-Government Act, the Sechelt Constitution and in Sechelt laws enacted under the Sechelt Act and the Sechelt Constitution. (s.14(f)) |
Westbank |
Westbank has jurisdiction to make laws regarding creation of interests and transfers, procedure for encumbering interests, expropriation of Westbank lands for community purposes, zoning, building standards, access to lands and residency. (Part X, ss. 103-107) |
Nisga’a |
Nisga’a Lisims Government and Nisga’a Village Governments have the principal authority under the Agreement to make laws in respect of Lands and assets including the creation of interests in Nisga’a Lands. (Ch. 11, s. 44) |
Tsawwassen |
Tsawwassen has paramount jurisdiction to make laws in respect of lands, including land management, use and control: creation, ownership and disposition, and establishment and operation of a land title or land registry.
Powers to make laws in respect of access to Tsawwassen Lands.
Tsawwassen has jurisdiction to make laws to dispose of its estate in fee simple in any parcel of Tsawwassen Lands or lesser estate without the consent of Canada or British Columbia. (Ch. 6, s. 1) |
Maa-nulth |
Each Maa-nulth First Nation Government has jurisdiction to make laws regarding use, ownership and disposition of Maa-nulth Lands. (s. 13.14.1(b)) |
| Conflict of Laws: | |
Sechelt |
|
Westbank |
Westbank law prevails. (Part X, s. 110) |
Nisga’a |
Nisga’a law prevails. (Ch. 11, s. 45) |
Tsawwassen |
Tsawwassen law prevails. (Ch. 6, s. 5) |
Maa-nulth |
Maa-nulth law prevails. (s. 13.14.2) |
3.19.5. BC First Nations’ Laws/By-laws in Force and Other Activities
Indian Act Governance
By-laws – Section 81(1)(f) Local works
| First Nation | By-law# | By-law Title | Description |
Kamloops |
1-74 |
LOCAL WORKS |
Respecting The Removal And Punishment Of Persons Trespassing Upon The Reserve Etc. |
By-laws – Section 81(1)(i) Survey and allotment of reserve lands
| First Nation | By-law# | By-law Title | Description |
Skeetchestn |
1986-1 |
LAND SURVEY |
By-Law Respecting Land Use. |
Tsleil-Waututh Nation |
1989-05 |
LAND SURVEY |
By-Law Respecting Land Control |
Tzeachten |
2008-01 |
SURVEY OF ALLOTMENT OF RESERVE LAND |
By-Law Respecting The Allotment Of Land On Reserve |
By-laws - Section 81(1)(p1) Residency
| First Nation | By-law# | By-law Title | Description |
Chemainus First Nation |
- |
TRESPASS AND RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Trespass And Residency |
Fort Nelson First Nation |
- |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Gwa'Sala-Nakwaxda'xw |
1994.06 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency On Band Owned Houses |
Haisla Nation |
- |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting The Residency Revoking |
Hartley Bay |
01-1988 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Heiltsuk |
20 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Homalco |
1992-001 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Kamloops |
2004-08 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting Residential Tenancy On Reserve |
Kanaka Bar |
02-93 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Katzie |
01-1988 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Kwikwetlem First Nation |
1.0 |
RESIDENCY |
By-law Respecting Residency |
Metlakatla |
1997-04 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Musqueam |
- |
TRESSPASSING |
By-Law Respecting Dangerous Persons |
Musqueam |
- |
RESIDENCY |
By-law Respecting Residency |
Nak'azdli |
01-01-2011 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting Residency, Allocation, Use And Occupancy Of All Band Owned Housing Units |
Namgis First Nation |
1995-01 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Nicomen |
02-93 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Nuchatlaht |
1987-01 |
RESIDENCY |
Being A By-Law Respecting The Vote Of Band Members |
Nuxalk Nation |
1989-01 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Qualicum First Nation |
01-1987 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Saulteau First Nations |
- |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Skuppah |
02-93 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Snuneymuxw First Nation |
- |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Spuzzum |
02-93 |
RESIDENCY |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Sumas First Nation |
1998-01 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting A By-Law To Regulate Residency And The Orderly Allocation, Use And Occupancy Of Band Owned Houses |
Tl'azt'en Nation |
19 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting Residency And The Orderly Allocation Use And Occupancy Of Band Owned Houses |
T'Sou-ke First Nation |
05 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Yale First Nation |
2002-2 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting Residency |
Yekooche |
2002-3 |
RESIDENCE |
By-Law Respecting The Regulation Of Residency |
Sectoral Governance Initiatives
| First Nation | By-law | Description |
Beecher Bay First Nation/Scia'new |
|
Land Code |
Kitselas First Nation |
Jun 19, 2005 |
Kitselas Reserve Lands Management Act |
Kitselas First Nation |
May 18, 2007 |
Kitselas Land Interests Law K.B.C. 2007 No.1 |
Kitselas First Nation |
Feb 2009 |
Kitselas Policy Manual – Land Grants to Members |
Kitselas First Nation |
Feb 7, 2011 |
Kitselas Policy Manual – Land Grant Transfers Upon Death |
Leq'a: mel First Nation |
Apr 2, 2007 |
Leq'a: mel Land Code |
Lheidli-T'enneh Band |
Nov 15, 2000 |
Lheidli T'enneh Band Land Code |
Matsqui First Nation |
Oct 17, 2007 |
Matsqui First Nation Land Code |
McLeod Lake Indian Band (Tsekani) |
May 20, 2003 |
McLeod Lake Indian Bands Land Code |
McLeod Lake Indian Band (Tsekani) |
MLIB 618-041111:022 |
Act to Apply the McLeod Lake Indian Band Land Code to Weston Bay Indian Reserve #20 and Finlay Bay Indian Reserve #21 |
Pavilion Indian Band (Ts'kw'aylaxw) |
Dec 14, 2003 |
Ts’kw’aylaxw First Nation Land Code |
Seabird Island Band |
|
Land Code |
Shxwha:y Village (Skway First Nation) |
|
Land Code |
Skawahlook First Nation |
|
Land Code |
Sliammon First Nation |
|
Land Code |
Songhees Nation |
|
Land Code |
Squiala First Nation |
Jul 20, 2007 |
Squiala First Nation Land Code |
Sumas First Nation |
Aug 31, 2010 |
SEMA:TH Land Code |
Tsawout First Nation |
Oct 31, 2006 |
Tsawout First Nation Land Code |
Tsawout First Nation |
Oct 10, 2007 |
Tsawout First Nation Lands Advisory Committee Policy No. 01-2007 |
Tsawout First Nation |
May 2008 |
Tsawout First Nation Trespass Law No. 02-2008 |
Tsawout First Nation |
Nov 2010 |
Tsawout First Nation Band Land and Natural Resource Disposition Law 02-2010 |
Ts'Kw'aylaxw First Nation |
Dec 14, 2003 |
Ts'Kw'aylaxw First Nation Land Code |
Tsleil-Waututh First Nation |
Feb 2007 |
Tsleil-Waututh Nation Land Code |
T'Sou-ke Nation |
Jan 11, 1996 |
T’Sou-ke First Nation Land Code |
T'Sou-ke Nation |
2007 |
T’Sou-ke First Nation Land Committee Selection Process Law |
Tzeachten First Nation |
Apr 24, 2008 |
Tzeachten First Nation Land Code |
We Wai Kai Nation (Cape Mudge) |
Aug 1, 2008 |
We Wai Kai Nation Land Code |
Comprehensive Governance Arrangements
| First Nation | By-law | Description |
Huu-ay-aht First Nations |
|
|
Huu-ay-aht First Nations |
|
Land Use Plan Regulation |
Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/Chek’tles7et’h’ First Nations |
|
|
MaaNulth |
|
TBD |
Nisga’a Nation |
|
Nisga'a Land Title Act - Unofficial Consolidation (August 29, 2008) |
Nisga’a Nation |
|
|
Nisga’a Nation |
|
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1988-03 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1989-01 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1989-03 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1989-04 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1989-05 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1989-06 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1989-07 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1991-02 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1991-03 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band |
1995-01 |
|
Sechelt Indian Band (SIGD) |
1996-01 |
|
Toquaht Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
Industrial Land Water Connection Land Availability Regulation |
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Tsawwassen First Nation |
|
|
Uchucklesaht Tribe |
|
|
Uchucklesaht Tribe |
|
|
Ucluelet First Nations |
|
|
Ucluelet First Nations |
|
|
Westbank First Nation |
|
WFN Constitution - Part XI - Land Rules |
Westbank First Nation |
|
WFN Land Registry Regulations |
Westbank First Nation |
2006-03 |
WFN Allotment Law |
Westbank First Nation |
2008-03 |
WFN Residential Premises Law [as amended March 22, 2010] |
Westbank First Nation |
2010-01 |
WFN Expropriation Law |
3.19.6. Resources
- First Nations Land Advisory Board (LAB)
First Nations Land Management Resource Centre (LABRC)
Suite 106, 350 Terry Fox Drive
Kanata, ON K2K 2W5Phone: 613-591-6649
Fax: 613-591-8373
Email: webadmin@labrc.com
- National Aboriginal Land Managers Association (NALMA)
Small Business Centre, General Delivery
Curve Lake, ON K0L 1R0Phone: 705-657-7660
Fax: 705-657-7177
- First Nations Alliance 4 Land Management (FNA4LM)
302 - 345 Yellowhead Hwy
Kamloops, BC V2H 1H1
Phone: 250-828-9804
Toll Free: 1-877-828-9805
Fax: 250-828-9809
Email: info@fna4lm.ca
- Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
British Columbia Region
Suite 600, 1138 Melville Street
Vancouver, BC V6E 4S3
Phone: 604-775-5100
Toll Free: 1-800-567-9604
Fax: 604-775-7149
TTY: 1-866-553-0554
E-mail: Infopubs@inac-ainc.gc.ca
- Natural Resources Canada
9700 Jasper Avenue Northwest
6th Floor, Room 605
Edmonton, AB T5J 4C3
Phone: 780-495-7347
Fax: 780-495-4052
- Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Pacific and Yukon Office
Suite 320, 757 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1A1
Phone: 604-666-2431
Fax: 604-666-6990
Email: ceaa.pacific@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
- Canadian Wildlife Service
Pacific Wildlife Research Centre
Environment Canada
RR1, 5421 Robertson Road
Delta, BC V4K 3N2
Phone: 604-940-4700
Fax: 604-946-7022
- First Nations Property Ownership Initiative (FNPOI)
Head Office: National Capital Region:
321 - 345 Yellowhead Hwy 160 George St., Suite 200
Kamloops BC V2H 1N1 Ottawa, ON K19 9M2
Phone: 250-828-9857 Phone: 613-789-5000
Fax: 250-828-9858 Fax: 613-789-5008
Email: mailkamloops@fntc.ca Email: info@fnpo.ca
Web: www.fnpo.ca
