AGENDA
MAYORS COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 9:00 a.m. 2nd Floor Boardroom 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC
Committee Members: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Mayor Rick Green, Langley Township Vice Chair, Director Gregor Robertson, Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Vancouver Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Heather Anderson, Anmore Director Darrell Mussatto, Director Kim Baird, Tsawwassen North Vancouver City Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director George Peary, Abbotsford Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Mayor Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Mayor Bob Turner, Bowen Island Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director Richard Walton, Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City North Vancouver District Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster West Vancouver
Please advise Pamela Goingo at (604) 432-6212 if you are unable to attend.
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
Item 1.1
NOTICE TO THE GVRD MAYORS COMMITTEE
9:00 a.m. Wednesday, March 16, 2011 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
A G E N D A
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 March 16, 2011 Regular Meeting Agenda Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 16, 2011 as circulated.
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 May 19, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its special meeting held May 19, 2009 as circulated
2.2 April 16, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its special meeting held April 16, 2009 as circulated.
2.3 April 4, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its special meeting held April 4, 2009 as circulated.
2.4 September 19, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held September 19, 2008 as circulated.
2.5 November 16, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held November 16, 2007 as circulated.
MC-1
2.6 October 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held October 24, 2007 as circulated.
3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Corporate Relations Department, Metro Vancouver Subject: Overview of First Nations, Tribal Councils and Treaty Groups, Shared Traditional Territories, and Indian Reserves within Metro Vancouver and Member Municipalities
4.2 Mayor Ralph Drew, Chair of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee Subject: First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA)
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Designated Speaker: Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Corporate Relations Recommendation: That the Board: 1. endorse the report, dated February 18, 2011, titled “Comments on the LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process”, and attached LMTAC Discussion Paper; 2. convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional considerations identified in this report; and 3. convey its comments to the Federal Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the Provincial Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR), and to the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s) within Metro Vancouver in order to advance the discussion on the Additions-to- Reserve process.
5.2 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” Designated Speaker: Marino Piombini, Regional Planner, Aboriginal Affairs Recommendation: That the Board: 1. endorse the report, dated February 18, 2011, titled “Comments on the LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First
MC-2 Nations Certainty of Land Title Act”, and attached LMTAC Discussion Paper; 2. convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional issues and considerations identified in this report; and 3. convey its comments to the Federal Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the Provincial Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR), and to the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s) within Metro Vancouver in order to advance the discussion with the federal and provincial governments on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act.
5.3 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Dates Designated Speaker: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary’s Department Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee establish the day, hour and place for its 2011 regular meetings as follows:
Day and Hour Wednesday, March 16 9:00 am Wednesday, June 22 9:00 am Wednesday, October 26 9:00 am
Place Meetings will be held in the 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda.
6. INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act – 1) Briefing Note and 2) Additional Information on FNCIDA
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.
9. ADJOURNMENT Staff Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee conclude its regular meeting of March 16, 2011.
MC-3
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
MC-4 MINUTES
MC-5
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
MC-6 Item 2.1
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT MAYORS COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Mayors Committee held at 9:10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia to consider to a resolution to close the meeting.
PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Mayor Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township Mayor Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster
ABSENT: Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director George Peary, Abbotsford Mayor Bob Turner, Bowen Island
STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 Tuesday, May 19, 2009 Special Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee adopt the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 2009 as circulated. CARRIED
MC-7 2. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee close its special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 19, 2009 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (2) A part of a committee meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) “the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.” CARRIED
3. ADJOURNMENT
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee conclude its special meeting of Tuesday, May 19, 2009. CARRIED (Time: 9:11 a.m.)
______Klara Kutakova, Lois E. Jackson, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 Page 2 of 2 MC-8 Item 2.2
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT MAYORS COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Mayors Committee held at 11:06 a.m. on Thursday, April 16, 2009 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia, to discuss policing.
PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District (departed at 12:30 p.m.) Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (departed at 12:30 p.m.) Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock (arrived at 11:21 a.m.) Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township (departed at 12:46 p.m.) Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam (departed at 12:45 p.m.) Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director George Peary, Abbotsford (departed at 12:45 p.m.) Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver (arrived at 11:08 a.m., departed at 1:00 p.m.) Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam (arrived at 11:11 a.m.) Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Dianne Watts, Surrey (departed at 12:58 p.m.) Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster
ABSENT: Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Mayor Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Mayor Bob Turner, Bowen Island
STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 Thursday, April 16, 2009 Special Meeting Agenda
11:08 a.m. Director Robertson arrived at the meeting.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee adopt the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 16, 2009 as circulated. CARRIED
MC-9 2. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
2.1 Proposed Resolutions to FCM on Criminal Code Reform Report dated April 9, 2009 from Lois Jackson, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, seeking Committee’s endorsement of a proposed Federation of Canadian Municipalities Emergency Resolution on Criminal Code Reform. If endorsed, the proposed resolution would be forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Annual Conference in June 2009.
11:11 a.m. Director Stewart arrived at the meeting.
Mohamed Doma, consultant, summarized comments made at the April 4, 2009 Special Mayors’ Committee meeting and proposed that the issues raised at the meeting be presented at the following four forums: the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and the Provincial and Federal Governments. It was proposed that a task force comprising mayors, chief administrative officers, and police chiefs be established to develop a position paper on policing.
The Committee provided the following comments on the proposed FCM resolution: · Insert at the end of the first WHEREAS clause the phrase “and protection of victims rights.” · Delete in the 4th last WHEREAS clause the phrase “no plea-bargaining for offences involving firearms” and insert at the end of the sentence the phrase “implement mandatory sentencing for illegal possession of firearms.” · Delete the WHEREAS clause concerning funding. A resolution concerning policing funding was dealt with at the October 3, 2008 GVRD Board meeting. · Change the title of the resolution; the resolution deals with more issues than only the Criminal Code Reform. The new suggested title: Criminal Justice Reform. · Metro Vancouver should present the resolution directly to the Federal Government.
The Committee also provided the following comments: · A study of the impact of the Criminal Code proposed changes to provisions, such as a lawful access and disclosure, was already undertaken by the Federal Government. Metro Vancouver should not replicate the study but should have access to it. · Inequity in funding of policing must be addressed. Municipal government cannot sustain the disproportionate funding where 90% or 100% of funding is provided by municipalities. Other levels of government need to contribute funding. Cost sharing should be submitted as a separate item for FCM consideration. · After receipt of the resolution by FMC, request FCM to work with its provincial counterparts to develop a national policy and a position paper on policing.
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 Page 2 of 6 MC-10 · Policing reforms need to be done by the Federal Government. Metro Vancouver can only provide a list of issues that local government and police departments are facing. · Review policing funding models in other provinces and the level of policing required from these municipalities.
11:21 a.m. Director Ferguson arrived at the meeting.
Concerns were expressed: · About the potential impact of the resolution on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, civil rights and privacy. · That Metro Vancouver will not be able to propose changes to the Criminal Code as it falls under Federal Government jurisdiction and responsibility.
Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED WHEREAS law enforcement agencies rely on effective legislative and investigative tools to deal with serious crimes such as homicide, organized crime, kidnapping and internet child luring;
AND WHEREAS law enforcement efforts are being significantly impacted by limitations placed on them due to out-dated legislation, over-burdened court processes and an increasingly sophisticated organized crime element;
AND WHEREAS there has been a dramatic escalation in gang warfare in major urban centres across Canada involving the use of illegal firearms that are readily available from domestic and international sources;
AND WHEREAS the proliferation of new telecommunications service providers and technologies, such as personal communications service, satellite communications, encryption, internet communications, local number portability, and local multipoint communications service, presents significant technical challenges to lawfully intercept and interpret private communications;
AND WHEREAS the rules of disclosure and the expansion of its scope have become an enormous challenge for law enforcement agencies and can be used to frustrate court processes;
AND WHEREAS the burden of proof in relation to forfeiture is totally incumbent upon the prosecutor and criminal organizations are finding ways to circumvent legislation requiring forfeiture of proceeds of crime;
AND WHEREAS public confidence in the justice system is eroded when courts release repeat or dangerous offenders out on bail, impose sentences that are deemed to be disproportionately lenient relative to the magnitude of the crime, or compensate offenders for time held in custody at a rate of two days for every one day served;
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 Page 3 of 6 MC-11 AND WHEREAS the public is supportive of a 'zero tolerance' approach to gun violence, including tougher mandatory sentencing and no plea- bargaining for offenses involving firearms;
AND WHEREAS there is an inequity in funding between municipal police forces and RCMP policing through the "Municipal Policing Agreement";
AND WHEREAS there is a need to focus more resources on crime prevention;
AND WHEREAS the Premier of the Province of British Columbia supports the call for legislative change:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities be requested to call upon the Government of Canada through the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General to amend the Criminal Code and other relevant legislation to address the above issues.
The Committee was requested to remove in the 4th last WHEREAS clause the phrase “no plea-bargaining for offences involving firearms” and insert at the end of the sentence the phrase “implement mandatory sentencing for illegal possession of firearms.”
Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors’ Committee delete in the fourth last WHEREAS clause the phrase “and no plea-bargaining for offenses involving firearms” and add at the end of the sentence the following phrase: “minimum mandatory sentencing for possession of illegal firearms.” CARRIED
The Committee was requested to add at the end of the first WHEREAS clause the phrase “while respecting the Charter of Rights.”
Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors’ Committee add at the end of the first WHEREAS clause the phrase “while respecting the Charter of Rights”. CARRIED
Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was called on the Main Motion as Amended and it was DEFEATED
Members proposed that, in order for the resolution to be effective and supported, the resolution be condensed and that a position paper, outlining concerns raised by police departments, local governments and citizens be attached to the resolution.
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 Page 4 of 6 MC-12 12:30 p.m. Directors Corrigan and Walton departed the meeting.
Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED WHEREAS criminal justice reform is a high priority for every community across the country:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Government be urged to move quickly to implement changes already identified and to review additional changes to the Criminal Code and related legislation.
It was proposed that an outline of the challenges faced by police departments and the local government be added to the resolution.
Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee amend the Main Motion by adding after the first WHEREAS clause the following phrase: “WHEREAS law enforcement efforts are facing increased challenges resulting from · Proliferation of illegal firearms; · Increasingly sophisticated organized crime elements; · New and quickly-evolving telecommunications technologies; · The enormous burden resulting from rules of disclosure; · Burden of proof in relation to forfeiture; · Public frustration over issues related to bail”. DEFEATED
Question on the Main Motion Question was called on the Main Motion and it was CARRIED
The Committee requested that the following items be attached to the resolution that will be forwarded to FCM: · Letter dated February 19, 2009 from John van Dongen, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, sent to the GVRD Board directors; · List of items that have already been identified at the meeting held in Surrey as well as other comments made across the region; · Comments received from police departments; and · Premier’s speech from February 13, 2009 concerning dedication of additional police officers and prosecutors.
The Committee requested that the recommendation not only be forwarded to FCM but that a delegation, comprising Board Chair, and mayors from Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby, meet without delay with the Federal Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety to explain Metro Vancouver’s Board position and to lobby for actions from the Federal Government.
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 Page 5 of 6 MC-13 The Committee also discussed the opportunity to present Metro Vancouver’s concerns to the Federal Justice Committee that will be traveling to Vancouver on April 30, 2009 to hold hearings on the state of organized crime in Canada.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board authorize a Board delegation to meet with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety to explain Metro Vancouver’s position on necessary criminal justice reforms and to lobby for actions from the Federal Government. CARRIED
12:45 p.m. Directors Moore and Peary departed the meeting. 12:46 p.m. Director Green departed the meeting.
The Committee agreed to continue with the initiative and requested that, pending the Board authorization of a budget, a background paper and position paper be developed by a consultant and that the support documentation be forwarded to the Board for approval prior to submitting it to the Provincial and Federal Government for their consideration and action.
12:58 p.m. Director Watts departed the meeting.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) authorize funding for the development of a position paper on policing; and b) proceed with the development of a strong and comprehensive position paper based on the outcomes of the April 4, 2009 special Mayors Committee meeting on policing and that it be developed without delay and be presented back to the Metro Vancouver Board for ratification. CARRIED
1:00 p.m. Director Robertson departed the meeting.
Loss of Quorum Quorum was lost and the meeting concluded.
______Klara Kutakova, Lois E. Jackson, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
004927983 FINAL
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Thursday, April 16, 2009 Page 6 of 6 MC-14 Item 2.3
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT MAYORS COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Mayors Committee held at 9:13 a.m. on Saturday, April 4, 2009 at the Justice Institute of B.C., 715 McBride Boulevard, New Westminster, British Columbia.
PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Vice Chair, Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Brenda Broughton, Lions Bay Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Mayor Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Rick Green, Langley Township Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Greg Moore, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City Director George Peary, Abbotsford Director Richard Stewart, Coquitlam Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster
ABSENT: Director Catherine Ferguson, White Rock Director Gregor Robertson, Vancouver Mayor Bob Turner, Bowen Island Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore
STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Klara Kutakova, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 Saturday, April 4, 2009 Special Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee adopt the agenda for its special meeting scheduled for Saturday, April 4, 2009 as circulated. CARRIED
MC-15
2. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee close its special meeting scheduled for Saturday, April 4, 2009 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 ( 2) A par t o f a co mmittee m eeting m ust be cl osed t o the publ ic if t he su bject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.” CARRIED
3. ADJOURNMENT
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee conclude its special meeting of Saturday, April 4, 2009. CARRIED (Time: 9:14 a.m.)
______Klara Kutakova, Lois E. Jackson, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
004918397 FINAL
Minutes of the Special Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Saturday, April 4, 2009 Page 2 of 2 MC-16 Item 2.4
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT MAYORS COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Mayors Committee held at 1:09 p.m. on Friday, September 19, 2008 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City Director Judy Forster, White Rock Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A (departed at 2:48 p.m.) Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver City (departed at 2:15 p.m.) Mayor Gordon Robson, Maple Ridge Director Sam Sullivan, Vancouver Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver District Director Dianne Watts, Surrey (departed at 2:47 p.m.) Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster Mayor Scott Young, Port Coquitlam
ABSENT: Vice Chair, Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, West Vancouver Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody Mayor Robert Turner, Bowen Island Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay
STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Marla Minichiello, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 September 19, 2008 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for September 19, 2008 as circulated. CARRIED
MC-17
Members agreed to recess the meeting and resolved to close the meeting.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for September 19, 2008 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (2) (b) as follows: “90 (2) A part of a committee meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (b) “the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the regional district and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.” CARRIED
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 October 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes No action taken.
RECONVENE The September 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Mayors Committee meeting reconvened at 1:52 p.m. with the same members in attendance.
Policing Issues Members considered policing issues in discussion with the Honourable John van Dongen, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, and with Kevin Begg, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policing and Community Safety Branch. Committee members raised the following points: · substantial increase in policing costs cannot be sustained · funding is needed for health treatment and rehabilitation facilities · federal funding for front line officers was not forthcoming · Insurance Corporation of British Columba (ICBC) could be a vehicle to obtain millions of dollars in uncollected fines · increase in violent drug crimes is affected by health treatment and enforcement
2:15 p.m. Director Mussatto departed the meeting.
· need for intra-governmental discussions regarding policing philosophy · a change in the cost share funding formula for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and municipal forces · It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board: a) request the Federal and Provincial Government change the cost sharing formula for communities with a population greater than 15,000 people for both municipal and RCMP policing services to reflect a 70/30 cost share with 30% shared between Federal and Provincial Government; and
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Friday, September 19, 2008 Page 2 of 3 MC-18
b) forward a copy of the recommendation to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Big Cities Mayors’ Caucus (BCMC). CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Drug Substitution and Maintenance Treatment Report dated September 21, 2007 from Drug Policy Coordinator, City of Vancouver, providing an overview of the status of current local and international substitution treatment programs and research for opiates and stimulants.
Members were informed of the two year drug substitution program in Vancouver and of related research projects.
Status report of the NAOMI (North American Opiate Medication Initiative) project together with a summary research proposal of the SALOME (Study to Assess Longer-term Opioid Medication Effectiveness) project were distributed and retained with the September 19, 2008 committee agenda.
2:47 p.m. Director Watts departed the meeting. 2:48 p.m. Director Gibson departed the meeting.
Loss of Quorum Quorum was lost and the meeting concluded at 2:51 p.m.
______Marla Minichiello, Lois E. Jackson, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
004660141 FINAL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Friday, September 19, 2008 Page 3 of 3 MC-19
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
MC-20 Item 2.5
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT JOINT SUSTAINABLE REGION INITIATIVE TASK FORCE AND MAYORS COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Joint Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Task Force and the Mayors Committee held at 9:40 a.m. on Friday, November 16, 2007 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Delta Director Gordon Robson, Maple Ridge (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee) Vice-Chair, Director Peter Ladner, Vancouver Director Barbara Steele, Surrey (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) (SRI Task Force) Director Kurt Alberts, Langley Township Mayor Sam Sullivan, Vancouver (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) (departed at 11:31 a.m.) Director Derek Corrigan, Burnaby (Mayors Committee) (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) Director Richard Walton, North Vancouver Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra District (Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee) Director Dianne Watts, Surrey Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A (Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee) Director Hal Weinberg, Anmore Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, (Mayors Committee) West Vancouver (departed at 11:27 a.m.) Director Maxine Wilson, Coquitlam (Mayors Committee) (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) Director Marvin Hunt, Surrey (departed at Director Wayne Wright, New Westminster 11:27 a.m.) (SRI Task Force) (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) Director Don MacLean, Pitt Meadows Director Max Wyman, Lions Bay (departed at 11:35 a.m.) (SRI Task Force and Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee) Mayor Scott Young, Port Coquitlam Director Darrell Mussatto, North Vancouver (departed at 11:42 a.m.) City (Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee)
ABSENT: Director Malcolm Brodie, Richmond Director Judy Forster, White Rock (Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee) Mayor Peter Fassbender, Langley City Director Joe Trasolini, Port Moody (Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee) Director George Ferguson, Abbotsford Mayor Robert Turner, Bowen Island (Mayors Committee) (Mayors Committee)
STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Marjorie Whalen, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 November 16, 2007 Regular Meeting Agenda
MC-21
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for November 16, 2007 as circulated. CARRIED
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES No items presented.
3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented.
5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Economic Development in Greater Vancouver Donna Jones, City of Surrey and Phil Heard, Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver Economic Commission, City of Vancouver, presented the “Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver” dated September 8, 2006.
Members were advised that the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) consists of four participating municipalities: Richmond, Surrey, Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver. The coordinated approach was developed to identify economic opportunities and provide a vision. A Task Force on Regional Economic Development Opportunities (TREDO) has been formed and will be meeting at least quarterly. The short and long-term priorities of the task force were detailed. Members were requested to assess the MOU and determine if their community would be interested in signing.
Concern was expressed that the Province has a Ministry of Economic Development. The proposed model would encourage provincial downloading and divert funds to efforts that may not bring any additional benefits. Also that priority should be given to addressing the needs of existing businesses that are being negatively affected by government bureaucracy before adopting a regional approach.
Discussion ensued relative to: · involvement of the private sector; · a regional mobile business licence; · how these efforts tie into the Regional Growth Strategy; · the weakness of the report using mainly Canadian models, where more relevant examples can be found in Denver, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Boston; · it being more useful to work with local sources of economic development such as the Police and Fire Games in 2009 that will bring in more people than the Olympics;
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Task Force and the Mayors Committee held on Friday, November 16, 2007 Page 2 of 6 MC-22 · the importance of immigration to economics; · the need to be careful about what is being promoted if the demand for products cannot be satisfied because of the shortage of skilled workers; and · that it is important to evaluate how much land is available.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee receive for information the presentation titled “Case for Regional Collaboration: Economic Development in Greater Vancouver” dated September 8, 2006. CARRIED Directors Drew and Walton absent at the vote.
5.2 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Drugs and Crime – Dealing with your drug problem Report dated October 22, 2007 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and John MacFarlane, Senior Program Manager, Corporate Relations Department, providing information on the September 19 and October 4, and 17, 2007 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: “Drugs and Crime – Dealing with your drug problem” as well as the original session held on June 26, 2006 at the Simon Fraser University Wosk Centre for Dialogue.
Members were provided a short video synopsis of the dialogue session that portrayed discussion on the scope of the problem. Referring the video as broadly as possible to include Police Boards and Chiefs, the local media and YouTube was suggested.
Request of Staff Staff was requested to correct Attachment 1 to the report dated October 22, 2007, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Drugs and Crime – Dealing with your drug problem” under the section “South” to clarify that south means the United States and not South Metro Vancouver.
Discussion ensued relative to the Minister of Health being receptive to meeting with a delegation from Metro Vancouver. Also discussed was the need to work cooperatively with the Health Minister, Solicitor General, and the Minister of Housing in an effort to garner senior government support on the issues of drugs, crime, and mental health.
Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Board forward the video synopsis from the Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues on Drugs and Crime, together with the report dated October 22, 2007, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Drugs and Crime – Dealing with your drug problem” to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Task Force and the Mayors Committee held on Friday, November 16, 2007 Page 3 of 6 MC-23 Amendment to the Main Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee amend the Main Motion by adding the phrase “and; direct staff to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Health to discuss the issues of drugs, crime and mental health. CARRIED
Question on the Main Motion as Amended Question was then called on the Main Motion as Amended and it was CARRIED
The main motion as amended now reads as follows: That the Board: · forward the video synopsis from the Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues on Drugs and Crime, together with the report dated October 22, 2007, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues: Drugs and Crime – Dealing with your drug problem” to member municipalities, and other related agencies for their information and comment; and · direct staff to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Health to discuss the issues of drugs, crime and mental health.
11:27 a.m. Directors Hunt and Goldsmith-Jones departed the meeting.
The following resolution was distributed on-table by Mayor Sullivan for consideration:
“Be it resolved that Metro Vancouver Mayors request the Solicitor General accelerate discussions with the Government of Canada to ensure that Metro Vancouver municipalities receive their fair share of the 2,500 new police officers committed by the Federal Government; That any agreement be ongoing, completed in advance of the upcoming municipal budget season and not require matching contributions from local governments in light of substantial investments we are already making in police services; That changes to Provincial legislation be made to assist Metro Vancouver – and all municipalities in BC – with the collection of millions of dollars of unpaid fines.”
Mayor Sullivan reported on a recent trip to a Chicago conference on Guns Crime and Drugs. He also explained what Vancouver is doing with hard to house people, the supervised injection site, and the four pillars approach drug strategy.
11:31 a.m. Mayor Sullivan departed the meeting. 11:35 a.m. Director MacLean departed the meeting.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Task Force and the Mayors Committee held on Friday, November 16, 2007 Page 4 of 6 MC-24 Referral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee refer Mayor Sullivan’s resolution regarding new police officers and changing legislation with respect to unpaid fines back to the next meeting of the Mayor’s Committee; and invite the Solicitor General to attend. CARRIED
5.3 Drug Substitution and Maintenance Treatment City of Vancouver Administrative Report dated October 2, 2007 from the Drug Policy Coordinator to Vancouver City Council providing information on drug substitution and maintenance treatment.
Referral Motion It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee refer the report dated October 2, 2007 from the Drug Policy Coordinator to Vancouver City Council titled “Drug Substitution and Maintenance Treatment” to the next meeting of the Mayors Committee. CARRIED
11:42 a.m. Mayor Young departed the meeting.
5.4 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues - Emergency Management Report dated November 4, 2007 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and John MacFarlane, Senior Program Manager, Corporate Relations Department, providing information on the October 25, 2007 “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue: Emergency Management”.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative Task Force and Mayors Committee refer the report dated November 4, 2007 from Heather Schoemaker, Manager, and John MacFarlane, Senior Program Manager, Corporate Relations Department, titled “Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogue: Emergency Management” to the next meeting of the Mayors Committee. CARRIED
6. INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented.
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Task Force and the Mayors Committee held on Friday, November 16, 2007 Page 5 of 6 MC-25 9. ADJOURNMENT
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the meeting now conclude. CARRIED (Time: 11:43 a.m.)
______Marjorie Whalen, Lois E. Jackson, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Joint Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI) Task Force and the Mayors Committee held on Friday, November 16, 2007 Page 6 of 6 MC-26 Item 2.6
GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT MAYORS COMMITTEE
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Mayors Committee held at 1:37 p.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia.
PRESENT: Chair, Director Lois Jackson, Corporation of Delta Vice-Chair, Director Peter Ladner, City of Vancouver Director Kurt Alberts, Township of Langley Director Malcolm Brodie, City of Richmond Director Derek Corrigan, City of Burnaby (arrived at 1:39 p.m.) Director Ralph Drew, Village of Belcarra Mayor Peter Fassbender, City of Langley Director George Ferguson, City of Abbotsford Director Judy Forster, City of White Rock Director Gary Gibson, Electoral Area A Director Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, District of West Vancouver Director Don MacLean, City of Pitt Meadows (departed at 3:24 p.m.) Director Darrell Mussatto, City of North Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan, City of Vancouver Director Dianne Watts, City of Surrey Director Hal Weinberg, Village of Anmore Director Maxine Wilson, City of Coquitlam Director Wayne Wright, City of New Westminster Director Max Wyman, Village of Lions Bay Mayor Scott Young, City of Port Coquitlam
ABSENT: Mayor Gordon Robson, District of Maple Ridge Director Joe Trasolini, City of Port Moody Mayor Robert Turner, Bowen Island Municipality Director Richard Walton, District of North Vancouver
STAFF: Johnny Carline, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Delia Laglagaron, Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Marjorie Whalen, Assistant to Regional Committees, Corporate Secretary’s Department
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1.1 October 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Agenda
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 24, 2007 by adding Item 7.1 “Drug Substitution and Maintenance Treatment”; and b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED
MC-27
2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
2.1 April 24, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held April 24, 2007 as circulated. CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS No items presented.
1:39 p.m. Director Corrigan arrived at the meeting.
4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS
4.1 Metro Vancouver’s VitalSigns 2007 Catherine Clement, Vice President, Communications and Judy Baldwin, Project Manager, Vital Signs – Vancouver Foundation, briefed members on the Vancouver Foundation’s goal of creating positive and lasting impacts in communities through the management of endowments. The Vital Signs survey provides a snapshot of the wellness and livability of the Metro Vancouver region.
An Ipsos Read poll identified transportation as the most important issue in need of attention and that most citizens have made an effort to have a positive impact on their community. A citizens grading panel determined that the gap between the rich and the poor, housing and transportation would receive failing grades.
Discussion ensued relative to the methodology used to compile the survey and the need for a distinction to be made between the opinions and the facts. Members were advised that the graders and public opinion polls highlight the disconnect between public perception and reality. The Vancouver Foundation was encouraged to provide the presentation to other levels of government.
Presentation material was provided by the delegate and is retained with the October 24, 2007 GVRD Mayors Committee agenda package.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Mayors Committee receive for information the presentation dated October 24, 2007 from the Vancouver Foundation on its VitalSigns 2007. CARRIED
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Page 2 of 4 MC-28 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
5.1 Livability Accord Between High Growth Municipalities Murray Dinwoodie, City Manager, City of Surrey, advised members of a Livability Accord that has recently been approved between the High Growth Communities (HGC) of Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Langley Township and Surrey.
Members were advised that the collective efforts of the HGC’s in implementing the Livability Accord will result in: 1. sustainable strategies to manage growth in each community; 2. more effective decision-making by the other orders of government in relation to decisions that affect the four HGC’s; and 3. cooperation between the HGC’s in implementing the actions identified in the strategies.
Concern was expressed that creating a sub-regional group outside of Metro Vancouver could be potentially divisive; that the alliance was formed to lobby the government for infrastructure; and with the HGC feeling the need to develop their own solution to the Regional Growth Strategy.
Members expressed support for the initiative as the identification of sub- regional issues could benefit the region. Other municipalities in the region have also worked on matters of mutual concern with success. Members were advised that the HGC communities view the Accord as a bridging opportunity and sharing information and resources with neighbours will assist in long range planning.
3:24 p.m. Director MacLean departed the meeting.
Presentation material was provided by the delegate and is retained with the October 24, 2007 GVRD Mayors Committee agenda package.
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee receive for information the letter dated October 10, 2007 from Mayors George Ferguson, Maxine Wilson, Kurt Alberts and Dianne Watts and the report titled “Livability Accord Between High Growth Municipalities” dated September 5, 2007 inclusive of Appendix I. CARRIED
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Mayors Committee defer the following remaining October 24, 2007 agenda items to the next meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee: 5.2 Economic Development in Greater Vancouver 5.3 Future of the Region Sustainability Dialogues – Drugs & Crime: Dealing with your Drug Problem 7.1 Drug Substitution and Maintenance Treatment CARRIED
6. INFORMATION ITEMS No items presented.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Page 3 of 4 MC-29
7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented.
8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING No items presented.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was MOVED and SECONDED That the meeting now conclude. CARRIED (Time: 3:34 p.m.)
______Marjorie Whalen, Lois E. Jackson, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Mayors Committee held on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Page 4 of 4 MC-30 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF
MC-31
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
MC-32 Item 5.1
Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011
To: Intergovernmental Committee Mayors Committee
From: Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Corporate Relations
Date: February 18, 2011
Subject: Comments on t he “L MTAC D iscussion P aper: Local G overnment I ssues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process”
Recommendations:
That the Board:
1. endorse the report, dated February 18, 2011, titled “Comments on the LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process”, and attached LMTAC Discussion Paper;
2. convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional considerations identified in this report; and
3. convey its comments to the Federal Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the Provincial Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR), and to the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s) within Metro Vancouver in order to advance the discussion on the Additions-to-Reserve process.
1. PURPOSE
To provide comments to the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) on its “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to- Reserve Process”, dated November 24, 2010 (attached).
2. CONTEXT a. Additions-to-Reserve Process The Federal government has the authority to add land to existing Indian Reserves or create new Indian Reserves. The Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) process was developed by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). It sets out the criteria and issues that must be addressed before land can be set apart as Indian Reserve.
MC-33 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 2 of 7
There are many reasons why a First Nation community may wish to add land to an existing Indian Reserve or create a new one, such as community growth and economic development. The Federal government’s ATR policy requires that proposals fit into one of the following three categories:
Legal Obligation Community Additions New Reserves / Other Additions to existing Indian Additions to existing Indian The creation of new Indian Reserves or creation of new Reserves because of: Reserves due to: Indian Reserves by way of: ● community growth (e.g. ● social or commercial ● treaty or claim settlement housing, schools, etc.) needs agreement ● geographic ● provincial land offerings ● court order enhancements or unsold surrendered ● legal reversion (e.g. rights-of-way) land ● return of unsold ● land for First Nations surrendered land currently without land
One of the review criteria is whether the First Nation has completed consultations with the neighbouring municipality about concerns and common issues. Where the proposed Indian Reserve is within municipal boundaries, the municipality must be notified in writing and provided three months to respond in writing with concerns which may relate to: tax loss, municipal servicing, bylaw applications, land use, and the ATR consultative process. First Nations and municipalities are expected to negotiate and communicate on ATR on a good faith basis, but there is no municipal veto. All ATR proposals are then reviewed by INAC to ensure that the requirements of the policy are met.
b. LMTAC’s Discussion Paper In June 2010, INAC conducted an evaluation of the Federal ATR policy. LMTAC and its member jurisdictions were invited to provide a local government perspective on their experiences in responding to recent ATR applications. LMTAC circulated a previous draft of this report which was received for information by the Intergovernmental Committee at its meeting on September 2, 2010.
LMTAC now also cites the Federal government as having recently introduced legislation (i.e. First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, or FNCIDA, and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act, or FNCLTA) intended to encourage on-Reserve development and potentially lead to increased ATR applications. LMTAC’s Discussion Paper is intended to raise awareness of this issue and its potential implications for local governments.
c. An Overview of LMTAC’s Discussion Paper LMTAC’s Discussion Paper identifies local governments’ issues as well as interests and recommendations based on the following six (6) criteria:
4902934 MC-34 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 3 of 7
LMTAC Criteria Local Government Issues Local Government Interests 1. Communication ● lack of direct ● local government communication with comments and concerns First Nations during need to be acknowledged ATR review process and addressed
LMTAC Criteria Local Government Issues Local Government Interests 2. Process ● INAC lacks understanding ● criteria and processes of potential implications of in the ATR process ATR for local governments should not be overridden ● 90-day review period by the Governor General insufficient in Council 3. Local Government ● local government not ● municipal consent must Engagement and meaningfully consulted be required for ATR within Transparency ● unclear if ATR process is a municipal boundaries public or confidential ● ATR process must be process transparent to the public 4. Intergovernmental ● regional districts are not ● meaningful consultation Coordination mentioned in the ATR with all forms of policy/process government is needed ● lack of stakeholder ● ATR land use must be coordination consistent with Official Community Plans, Regional Growth Strategies, as well as general local government zoning and bylaws ● potential implications of ATR for local governments need to be considered in bilateral agreements between Canada and First Nations outside the treaty process 5. Servicing and Land ● local government’s ● servicing agreements Use obligation to service should be in place ATR lands is unclear simultaneously with the ● ATRs could lead to a approval of any ATR, patchwork of without any obligation for jurisdictions and local government to incompatible land use service new Reserves ● lNAC’s policy to not approve ATR applications for market development if
4902934 MC-35 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 4 of 7
alternative land tenure is available is supported 6. Financial Impacts ● no requirement to have ● local governments must servicing agreements in not be financially place prior to approval impacted by ATR for ATRs ● ATR should not be ● ATRs could place local approved until the First government tax rates at a Nation and local competitive government have agreed disadvantage upon a harmonized tax structure
d. Additional Comments on ATR for LMTAC’s Consideration LMTAC’s criteria for reviewing ATRs (i.e. communication; process; local government engagement and transparency; intergovernmental coordination; servicing and land use; and financial impacts) are all relevant and need to be supported. However, the following are additional comments suggested by Metro Vancouver staff for LMTAC’s consideration:
· Local governments would like to work cooperatively with Provincial, Federal and First Nation governments with respect to ATR. However, local governments as third parties are merely asked to provide written comments. Moreover, regional districts are not acknowledged or recognized in the ATR legislation and process. This approach does not satisfy whether, as third parties, local government issues and interests are understood so that a proper decision can be made by INAC.
· There should be a timeline to review and comment on ATR applications. The process should include multi-party forums to further observe, inform and discuss the respective and possible competing interests (e.g. land use designations).
· The ATR application process expends time, as well as human and financial resources, for local governments and First Nations. In addition, local governments can be financially impacted in a negative way by ATR. Therefore, funding from the Crown is essential for ensuring that local governments are properly engaged in the ATR process.
· The ATR process can work to undermine the treaty process: additional ATRs mean potentially less incentives for First Nations to pursue treaty negotiations. For example, Squamish Nation has not negotiated treaties since 2000 but has, instead, aggressively pursued ATR both within and outside Metro Vancouver. Additionally, the Musqueam Indian Band has not negotiated treaties since 2005, but is currently pursuing ATR.
· Dispute resolution: it is not clear within the ATR process how local governments and First Nations can and will resolve their disputes (e.g. land use). LMTAC could identify and recommend an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes resulting from ATR or disputes that impede the progress of an ATR application.
· Although the Federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has already received LMTAC’s Discussion Paper, and the Province and Union of BC Municipalities have also been copied, the discussion on local government concerns with ATR needs to continue
4902934 MC-36 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 5 of 7
and also include the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) within Metro Vancouver.
e. Possible Implications for Metro Vancouver There are nine (9) First Nations within the Metro Vancouver region with a total of 22 Indian Reserves; 16 of them are inhabited. Tsawwassen First Nation is a treaty First Nation having Treaty Settlement Lands. There are also two (2) other First Nations (New Westminster Indian Band, also known as the Qayqayt First Nation, and the Hwlitsum First Nation, which has a traditional territory spanning Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and a large portion of the Lower Mainland) currently without lands; both of these First Nations are pursuing the Federal Specified Claims process to reclaim their territories.
Within Metro Vancouver’s Electoral Area ‘A’, there are four (4) Indian Reserves: Barnston Island Indian Reserve No. 3 (Katzie First Nation); Pitt Lake Indian Reserve No. 4 (Katzie First Nation); Inlailawatash Indian Reserve No. 4 (Tsleil-Waututh Nation); and Inlailawatash Indian Reserve No. 4A (Tsleil-Waututh Nation).
In early 2010, Metro Vancouver (as a “municipality”) was requested by INAC to respond to Musqueam Indian Band’s ATR applications: the additions of District Lot 8015 and Block K to Musqueam’s Indian Reserve No. 2 in Vancouver.
More recently, Squamish Nation has initiated ATR proposals within the District of Squamish, which is an LMTAC member jurisdiction.
Both Musqueam and Squamish Nation are in the BC Treaty Process, but have not been involved in treaty negotiations for some time (not since 2005 in the case of Musqueam and not since 2000 in the case of Squamish Nation). Both First Nations have been pursuing their land issues through alternative methods including the Federal ATR process, New Relationship agreements with the Province and other agreements with one or the other senior government (or both).
In addition, the Federal government, with significant input from Squamish Nation, passed the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) in 2005 and the accompanying First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA) in 2010. These two pieces of legislation serve to implement on-Reserve commercial real estate property rights, including a land title system similar to the Provincial regime elsewhere, and clarification of title and property rights to aid investor/developer confidence for on-Reserve projects, thus making the property’s value equal to non-Reserve lands. As well, Musqueam has recently notified the Federal government that the First Nation intends to pursue a bilateral self-government agreement (no additional details are available at the time of this writing). These legislative changes and actions provide further motivation for First Nations to pursue an increasing number of ATRs in the near future.
While Metro Vancouver does not currently have an official policy in regards to ATR and each ATR application is treated on an individual basis in consideration of the unique geography, needs and characteristics, issues regarding the future use of the land with respect to servicing (i.e. compatibility with the Regional Growth Strategy; evaluating requests for extensions of the sewerage area boundaries; service provision; DCCs; application of bylaws and regulations; tax
4902934 MC-37 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 6 of 7 considerations; and future dispute resolution), all need to be identified and communicated to the Federal government (INAC) and First Nation(s) during the ATR application/approval process. This also reinforces the need for the GVWD and GVS&DD to be directly involved at the outset of negotiations for any of the utility servicing agreements that may currently be contemplated or pursued between municipalities and First Nations.
Legal issues may also need to be addressed. For example, Metro Vancouver (GVRD) may be legally precluded from providing services to lands that are not currently serviced because, pursuant to the Local Government Act, the GVRD must conform to the Regional Growth Strategy. All bylaws adopted by the GVRD Board, and all services undertaken by the GVRD, must be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. Other legal and contractual issues such as the obligation to provide regional services and reasonable notice to terminate regional services also need to be considered.
3. ALTERNATIVES
The Intergovernmental Committee may wish to recommend that the Board:
(1) receive this report and the attached LMTAC Discussion Paper for information and take no further action; or
(2) provide additional direction and/or input to staff for further consideration of the report; or
(3) endorse this report and attached LMTAC Discussion Paper and convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional considerations identified in this report, and convey its comments to the Federal Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the Provincial Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR) and the respective Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) within Metro Vancouver in order to advance discussions on the ATR process.
Alternative (3) is recommended. Given the issues identified in LMTAC’s Discussion Paper and those identified in this report, it is imperative that the Board also convey its comments to the respective Federal and Provincial Ministers responsible for Aboriginal relations as well as MPs and MLAs within the Metro Vancouver region in order to advance local government issues and interests on the ATR process.
4. CONCLUSION
LMTAC is forwarding its final version of the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” following an evaluation of the ATR process by INAC in June 2010, recent introduction of Federal legislation intended to encourage on-Reserve development (i.e. FNCIDA and FNCLTA), and recent ATR applications within the jurisdictions of LMTAC-member local governments (including Metro Vancouver).
LMTAC’s Discussion Paper, which is intended to raise awareness of potential implications for local governments, identifies local governments’ issues and interests with ATR based on a series of criteria: communication; process; local government engagement and transparency; intergovernmental coordination; servicing and land use; and financial impacts.
4902934 MC-38 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 7 of 7
This report identifies additional considerations and recommends that the Board: endorse this report and the LMTAC Discussion Paper; convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional considerations; and convey its comments to the respective Federal and Provincial Ministers responsible for Aboriginal relations, as well as MPs and MLAs within Metro Vancouver in order to advance the discussion on the ATR process.
Attachment: LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to- Reserve Process”, dated November 24, 2010. (Orbit 4879525)
4902934 MC-39 LOWER Lower Mainland TAC MAINLAND Telephone (604) 451-6179 4th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Fax (604) 436-6860 Burnaby, B.C. TREATY E-mail: [email protected] V5H 4G8 ADVISORY Website: www.lmtac.bc.ca COMMITTEE
LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process
Introduction
The Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) process of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), and the implications for local governments, has gained increased profile among member jurisdictions of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC). Reasons include: • LMTAC participation in a June 2010 INAC evaluation of the ATR process; • recent experiences of LMTAC member jurisdictions in ATR applications; and • the emergence of federal legislations (e.g. the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act) intended to facilitate and attract on-reserve development, and the potential that such legislations may lead to increased ATR applications.
This paper summarizes the role of local government in the current ATR process, identifies potential issues for local governments, and presents local government interests and recommendations to be considered and promoted within INAC’s ATR policy.
Additions to Reserve Process
An Indian Reserve can be described as the area of land that is held in trust by the Federal Crown for the use and benefit of an Indian Band (First Nation). As Federal land held under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, local government bylaws and provincial land use legislation are of no effect on Indian Reserves.
First Nation communities, like many other communities in Canada, may from time to time encounter the need or opportunity to expand their land base. Under INAC’s ATR policy of 2001, lands can be considered for addition to existing Indian Reserves if the application falls within the following three policy categories1:
1 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), Land Management Project Toolkit, Book 3, Additions to Reserve Policy (2007).
MC-40 1. Legal Obligations, including; o Specific Claim; o Court Order; or o Legal Reversion. 2. Community Additions, including; o Community growth (member housing, community centres, schools, churches, and other community uses); o Geographic enhancements (accretions, rights-of-way); or o Return of Unsold Surrendered Land. 3. New Reserves, with possible reasons including; o Social or commercial needs. The ATR policy requires a First Nation to demonstrate that the benefits of the proposal cannot be achieved through other forms of land tenure; o Provincial Land Offerings or Unsold Surrendered Land. The benefits of the proposal are weighed against the federal cost implications and other site-specific criteria; or o Landless First Nations.
ATR applications are addressed through a step-by-step process and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. INAC and the applicant First Nation must consider local government interests, including the following: • land use planning / by-law harmonization; • tax considerations; • service provision; and • dispute resolution.
While First Nations and local governments are expected to negotiate and communicate on ATR applications on a “good faith” basis, local governments do not have a general or unilateral veto over the granting of Indian Reserve status.2
INAC does not have statutory authority to approve an ATR application.3 All successful ATR applications must receive approval through the Governor General in Council. While INAC regional staff can make recommendations to the Minister respecting the strength and/or weakness of an ATR application, the ultimate decision to approve the ATR rests with Federal Cabinet.
Identification of Local Government Issues
Based on a review of the INAC ATR policy, and feedback received from several LMTAC member jurisdictions that have recent and ongoing experience with ATR applications, the following issues of concern for local government have been identified:
2 INAC, Additions to Reserves/New Reserves Policy: Directive 10-1, 6.8 (October 2003) 3 INAC Presentation, Expanding the Reserve Land Base (December 2007)
MC-41 Communication • Improved communication between local government and the applicant First Nation is imperative. In a recent ATR application considered by two LMTAC member jurisdictions, INAC was responsible for communicating with local government; however, in another ATR application, it was the applicant First Nation that managed communications. Direct communication with the First Nation, facilitated by INAC, increases the ability of local government to understand and communicate with the First Nation any issues that may arise with respect to the application.
• Furthermore, affected local governments must be notified as soon as any notional concepts are discussed between either the Federal Government or Provincial Government, and any First Nation. Confidentiality agreements may be appropriate in some sensitive instances.
Process • INAC regional staff make recommendations to the Minister respecting the strength and/or weakness of an ATR application. However, as the ultimate decision to approve the ATR rests with Federal Cabinet, politicians may support certain objectives and outcomes respecting the ATR application without the same understanding of potential implications for local government as INAC regional staff.
• Municipal and provincial government agencies are provided with 90 days to respond to a First Nation’s ATR proposal.4 Once comments have been submitted, there appears to be no reciprocal obligation for INAC or the First Nation to respond to any issues or concerns raised by local government. Also, the 90 day response period is not sufficient time for local governments to properly analyse an application that could significantly alter the regional landscape. In addition, 90 days is not enough time to consider local government duty for public consultation.
Local Government Engagement and Transparency • In British Columbia, local government is recognized as an order of government and not simply a ‘third party’ interest; following, local government should be meaningfully consulted on ATR applications early in the process by the First Nation and, if necessary, INAC.
• Local governments must represent the interests of the community, and adhere to principles of transparency and accountability to the electorate. It is unclear if the ATR process is public or in-camera, which may place local government in the conflicting position of having private knowledge of proposals that are not in the community interest. The INAC ATR process needs to adhere to principles of transparency and accountability to the electorate affected by the ATR proposal.
4 FCM Toolkit (2007).
MC-42 Intergovernmental Coordination • While municipalities are provided a role in the INAC ATR process, there is no mention of the other order of local government in British Columbia — regional districts. Long-term regional district planning, service delivery, and capital infrastructure plans can be impacted by ATR applications and the potential change of land jurisdiction to Indian Reserve. The impression is that any regional district involvement in the ATR process is a reflection of the goodwill of INAC staff, and not a matter of policy.
• Municipalities, regional districts, provincial agencies and other authorities may have interests in ATR applications. The experience of LMTAC local governments to-date reveals that there is insufficient or non-existent intergovernmental coordination between agencies in the ATR process. Potential issues and conflicts are compounded by the uncertainty caused by the lack of stakeholder coordination. Early, meaningful and coordinated consultation can result in challenges being identified and resolved prior to becoming obstacles to the application.
Servicing and Land Use • The obligation, if any, of local government to service ATR lands requires clarification; particularly if land use and servicing needs are unclear or inconsistent with long-term municipal and regional plans at the time of application.
• LMTAC member jurisdictions are concerned that ATR applications could result in a patchwork of jurisdictions across the region, particularly if the applicant First Nation proposes land use for the ATR lands that is incompatible with neighbouring municipal land use planning.
Financial Impacts • First Nations and INAC must support the authority of local governments to determine the nature of the servicing agreements entered into for the ATR lands, before any endorsement is considered. For example, certain local governments prefer unique agreements for each service provided, while others prefer the ‘global services’ approach. LMTAC encourages its members to pursue global service arrangements that include both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ services.
• Local governments rely on industrial and commercial taxation to contribute to a range of municipal and regional services. LMTAC is concerned that First Nations may use ATR to place local government tax rates at a competitive disadvantage, with no guarantee of the First Nation contributing to the full range of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ municipal or regional services. Accordingly, ATR applications for market development should not be approved if alternative land tenure is available; for example, fee-simple ownership subject to municipal jurisdiction.
MC-43 • Currently, there are no legal mechanisms to ensure that First Nations do not submit an ATR application for acceptable land constraint issues, such as band member housing, only to use it for development of residential market housing after the application is approved. This is particularly important due to the new opportunities for market development on reserve lands provided by the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and amendments passed under the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA).
Local Government Interests and Recommendations
LMTAC First Principle #12 – Post Treaty Additions to Treaty Settlement Lands states:
Lands to be added after the treaty is signed must remain subject to local government jurisdiction and taxation unless otherwise agreed to by local governments through a community consultation process.
Although the above First Principle was created to address scenarios in the BC Treaty Process, the same underlying interest applies in the ATR context; local governments are adamant that no transfer of jurisdiction occur for lands located within municipal boundaries unless agreed to by the affected local government.
LMTAC recommends that local government issues and concerns outlined above be addressed in the ATR process through consideration of the following interests:
Communication • First Nation applicants and/or INAC must be obligated to confirm receipt of local government comments, and to address each of the local government concerns identified. In the event local government concerns cannot be accommodated, written reasons must be provided. LMTAC requests that ATR communication protocols be clearly delineated to the First Nation, INAC and local government.
Process • LMTAC requests that local government receive assurance that criteria and processes described in the INAC ATR policy will not be overridden by the Governor General-in-Council. In circumstances where a Federal Cabinet decision differs from the recommendation of INAC regional staff, a process is needed for Federal politicians to communicate directly with affected local governments so that the potential implications for local communities are fully understood by the decision makers.
• LMTAC recommends that INAC allow requests from local government for extensions to the 90-day response period, and that INAC evaluate these requests on a case-by-case basis.
MC-44 Local Government Engagement and Transparency • For ATR applications where there are no legal obligations for INAC, municipal consent must be required for ATR within municipal boundaries.
• LMTAC recommends that the process become transparent to the public. The community must clearly understand ATR land use plans through open houses, workshops or public hearings.
Intergovernmental Coordination • The status of regional district consultation within the ATR process remains uncertain. INAC ATR policy must reflect the importance of meaningful consultation with all forms of local government. INAC should consider adding a reference to regional districts, as applicable, within the consultation requirements contained within the ATR policy.
• LMTAC requests that proposed ATR land use be consistent with Official Community Plans and Regional Growth Strategies, as well as general local government zoning and bylaws.
• LMTAC recommends that INAC consider adding a new mechanism to the ATR policy that would improve stakeholder coordination during the ATR process.
• LMTAC requests clarification on whether the ATR process and its potential implications for local government is considered in bilateral agreements between Canada and First Nations outside of the treaty process.
Servicing and Land Use • LMTAC requests that service agreements be in place simultaneously with the approval of any ATR. Service agreements are encouraged to be comprehensive and include both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ services. Local government must agree with the terms of the service provision. The ATR process must not result in any obligation for local government to service new Indian Reserve lands.
• To encourage First Nation land use that is consistent with that of the neighbouring local government, LMTAC supports INAC policy to not approve ATR applications for market development if alternative land tenure is available; for example, fee-simple ownership subject to municipal jurisdiction. Legal mechanisms are; therefore, required to ensure that First Nations do not submit an ATR application for band member housing, only to use it for development of residential market housing after the application is approved.
Financial Impacts • Local governments must not be financially impacted by ATR. ATR proposals must address the harmonization of property taxes, including remittance of school and hospital district taxes, to the Province and regional district. In the Metro Vancouver region, the remittance of transit taxes for TransLink must be included.
MC-45
• ATR applications must not be approved until the First Nation and the affected local government have agreed upon a harmonized property tax structure.
The Need for Local Government Consultation
This paper is intended to identify the general issues and interests of Lower Mainland local governments with respect to the ATR process. Individual local governments will have additional issues and interests that reflect the unique nature, needs, perspectives, and circumstances of their communities in relation to the specifics of an ATR application.
A survey of LMTAC member jurisdictions reveals a range of experiences and potential impacts when faced with ATR applications. As the effects of ATR applications may vary considerably for any particular municipality and/or regional district, it is essential that the INAC ATR policy reflect that consultation with local government be public and transparent, meaningfully undertaken early in the process, and with coordinated, consistent and continuing means for communication throughout the process.
Next Steps
LMTAC respectfully submits the discussion paper Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserve Process to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for consideration, and requests the opportunity to discuss these issues with an INAC representative at a future meeting of the LMTAC Board. Further to the ATR process evaluation conducted by INAC in June 2010, in which LMTAC was an invited participant, LMTAC requests a briefing on the findings and next steps contemplated by the federal government.
MC-46 Item 5.2
Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011
To: Intergovernmental Committee Mayors Committee
From: Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Corporate Relations
Date: February 18, 2011
Subject: Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act”
Recommendations:
That the Board:
1. endorse the report, dated February 18, 2011, titled “Comments on the LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act”, and attached LMTAC Discussion Paper;
2. convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional issues and considerations identified in this report; and
3. convey its comments to the Federal Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the Provincial Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR), and to the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA’s) within Metro Vancouver in order to advance the discussion with the federal and provincial governments on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act.
1. PURPOSE
To respond to a request for comments from the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) on its “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” (FNCLTA), dated December 10, 2010 (attached). LMTAC seeks comments from its member jurisdictions by March 16, 2011.
MC-47 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 2 of 9
2. CONTEXT a. FNCIDA and FNCLTA LMTAC has been monitoring the developments of FNCIDA and FNCLTA since the latter received Royal Assent in the summer of 2010. The purpose of these two Federal acts is to reduce the regulatory gap on commercial, industrial and residential market developments on Indian Reserves.
In brief terms, FNCIDA is: · enabling legislation that grants authority for the Governor-in-Council to make Federal regulations on request of a First Nation; and is · designed to allow development of projects on Indian Reserve lands which would not otherwise be able to proceed.
Regulations under FNCIDA: · can only be made on request of a First Nation; · will be project specific and limited in application to the particular lands described in the regulations; and · can replicate provincial laws for a major commercial and industrial project.
The benefits of FNCIDA, as identified by the senior governments and First Nations, include:
Benefactors Identified Benefits of FNCIDA First Nations · enables communities to compete for investment opportunities and develop their economies, increasing economic self- sufficiency, and enhancing quality of life · provides a regulatory tool to more effectively balance economic development and protection of Indian Reserve lands and resources for future generations Federal government · helps meet commitments to First Nations regarding economic development, stewardship of Indian Reserve land, and timely access to land and resources · increases economic activity · increases tax revenue Province · ensures that major commercial and industrial development projects on Indian Reserve lands are subject to comprehensive regulatory regimes similar to those applying off reserve in the province · increases economic activity in the region · increases provincial tax revenues from businesses and individuals Industry · enables establishment of regulatory regimes that are certain, transparent, familiar and well-understood
4902926 MC-48 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainly of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 3 of 9
The FNCIDA Regulation does not contemplate a role for local governments, yet local governments will be impacted by FNCIDA projects. Given that there has yet to be a project completed in BC under FNCIDA and FNCLTA, there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding how the Province will implement projects and what the effect will be on local governments. b. LMTAC’s Discussion Paper and Request The two-fold purpose of LMTAC’s discussion paper is: (1) to ensure that both the Provincial and Federal governments understand and consider the complex nature of the impacts that FNCIDA projects will have on local government; and (2) to raise local governments’ awareness of FNCIDA and its potential implications. Issues identified in the paper include: · implementation and administration of FNCIDA agreements · implementation of an equitable property assessment system · the effect of growing non-Aboriginal populations living on Indian Reserves, including the inequity of not charging school, hospital (Translink) and regional district taxes · impact on existing service agreements · an increase in Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) applications · cross-boundary impacts of large-scale FNCIDA developments (e.g. Squamish Nation) · impact of FNCIDA legislation on the BC Treaty Process
LMTAC’s discussion paper was circulated to LMTAC-member jurisdictions on December 10, 2010 for review and comment by March 16, 2011. c. An Overview of LMTAC’s Discussion Paper LMTAC’s Discussion Paper identifies local government issues as well as interests and recommendations based on several criteria:
LMTAC Criteria Local Government Issues Local Government Interests 1. Implementation and ● Province needs to clarify ● early involvement of local Administration of how it will implement and governments needed, FNCIDA Agreements administer FNCIDA projects including consultation in terms of property assessment system, application of construction and standards, taxation
2. The Implementation ● a comprehensive and ● BCA or equivalent system of an Assessment accurate property needed System Equivalent to assessment roll system is ● property values on BC Assessment (BCA) needed reserve lands must be calculated in a manner comparable to those located off-reserve
3. The Effect of ● “taxation without ● transparency, fair Growing Non- representation” representation and Aboriginal Populations property tax treatment
4877153 MC-49 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 4 of 9 on Reserves
4. Impact on Existing ● local governments’ role in ● meaningful consultation Service Agreements FNCIDA is unclear with local government is between Local is needed, particularly Governments and First with respect to DCCs, Nations service agreements, bylaws, taxation, etc.
LMTAC Criteria Local Government Issues Local Government Interests 5. An Increase in ● gap exists in land use ● Federal legal Additions-to-Reserve monitoring (i.e. lands mechanisms needed to (ATR) Applications designated ATR becoming clarify the use of ATR FNCIDA-designated lands projects)
6. Cross-Boundary ● servicing in relation to ● senior government Impact of Large-Scale FNCIDA projects consultation with local Development ● municipal and regional governments needed plans on issues related to compensation, consistency with municipal and regional plans, etc.)
7. Impact on the BC ● status of FNCIDA projects ● comprehensive Treaty Process unclear if there is a treaty implementation strategy ● FNCIDA may discourage needed to support treaties treaty negotiations and overcome issues
While the issues and recommendations identified by LMTAC should all be supported from a local government perspective, there are additional comments on FNCIDA proposed by Metro Vancouver staff following its review of the Discussion Paper and FNCIDA/FNCLTA legislation, for LMTAC’s consideration:
· While FNCIDA is intended for “commercial and industrial undertakings”, the Governor- in- Council may be able to approve projects under FNCIDA that are not necessarily driven by a commercial purpose and which may be service and land use intensive developments, such as hospitals, universities and hydro-electric plants. FNCIDA does not include local government service agreements, which are to be negotiated outside the FNCIDA Regulation.
· FNCIDA prescribes royalties and fees, establishes offences and penalties, requires environmental assessment(s) and outlines confidentiality rules. FNCIDA legislation also prohibits any civil proceedings, orders, fines or monetary penalties against the Crown in
4902926 MC-50 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainly of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 5 of 9
relation to FNCIDA lands, but is silent on similar exemptions or immunities for local governments providing municipal services to FNCIDA developments.
· Local governments approached by First Nations for municipal services for FNCIDA projects may first wish to consider whether those First Nations have the capacity (1) to raise sufficient taxation and revenues to provide and support their own utility servicing and (2) to build, maintain and operate the necessary infrastructure.
· Timing: The Provincial government wants to ensure that the neighbouring local governments are informed about the FNCIDA initiative and consult with local governments, school districts, and third parties to assess whether there will be a need for increased services and new infrastructure, including transportation and education infrastructure, as a result of the proposed additional FNCIDA project. First Nations, similarly, are to consult with potentially affected local governments and school districts and disclose the outcomes of those consultations with the Province. The FNCIDA approval process and drafting of Regulations for a proposed project can take up to two (2) years to complete, thus delaying proposed projects and creating potential uncertainties for local governments regarding infrastructure planning and corresponding budgetary requirements.
· LMTAC’s Discussion Paper proposes an example of a less cumbersome means for addressing regulatory gaps, such as the Governor-in-Council declaring inapplicable to all or a portion of any Indian Reserve lands, under Section 4(2) of the Indian Act.
There are other possible alternatives that could be considered. For example: - locating projects off-reserve (e.g. First Nation owned, fee simple lands) - application of other First Nation laws (e.g. under the First Nations Land Management Act) - lease terms: requiring compliance with provincial laws
· While FNCIDA has the objective of closing the regulatory gaps that currently exist on Reserve versus off-Reserve, it may in theory work to inadvertently create regulatory gaps between one First Nation (or Indian Reserve) and another across Canada. Using water regulation as a theoretical example: FNCIDA is conditional upon First Nations opting in and the willingness of each Province to extend and enforce Provincial regulations on Reserves. This, therefore, would not provide for consistent water regulation protection with some First Nations opting in, while others choosing not to do so, or if FNCIDA is to apply to only one Reserve where a First Nation has multiple Indian Reserves (such as Squamish Nation with 24 Indian Reserves within three regional districts). d. Possible Implications Posed by FNCIDA for Metro Vancouver Possible implications specific to Metro Vancouver are identified as follows: FNCIDA projects and their compatibility with the regional growth strategy; Development Cost Charges; servicing; evaluation of requests for the extension of the sewerage area; and the application of bylaws and regulations.
4877153 MC-51 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 6 of 9
Compatibility with the Regional Growth Strategy FNCIDA will heighten the need to explore land use coordination and related issues because a designated FNCIDA project will likely bring increased activity on Indian Reserves largely for the purposes of economic development. FNCIDA projects may or may not be compatible with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). This could be a challenging issue because, while First Nations were involved in the RGS engagement process, First Nations’ lands are not subject to the RGS. The Local Government Act requires that all works and services provided by the regional district be consistent with its RGS (Section 865(1)). A mechanism for sharing, reviewing and coordinating long-term plans between First Nations and local governments is clearly lacking with FNCIDA. Therefore, discussions between a First Nation, local governments, and Metro Vancouver (as well as Translink) need to take place early in the FNCIDA designation/approval process in order to determine if the project land use is consistent, and can be coordinated with the RGS in terms of requirements for population growth, such as housing, utility services, transportation, and other community and planning- related matters.
Development Cost Charges (DCCs) Metro Vancouver applies Development Cost Charges (DCCs) to users that are part of emerging Lower Mainland developments to pay for new sanitary sewer works such as additional trunk lines, pumping stations, and wastewater treatment plant expansion. This practice should not be any different for potential FNCIDA projects.
The issue, as identified in the LMTAC Discussion Paper, is: how does a municipality or regional district collect DCCs when a development takes place outside its jurisdictional boundaries, such as federal lands, where local governments do not have the ability to approve a subdivision or authorize building permits?
One solution might be to amend the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act (GVS&DD Act). The GVS&DD Act authorizes the GVS&DD to “by bylaw, impose development cost charges on every person who obtains from a member municipality (a) approval of a subdivision, or (b) building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure.”
An alternate solution might be to negotiate payment by contract (i.e. service agreement). In seeking compliance with the collection of DCC’s, the municipality and regional district would essentially be asking the First Nation and/or FNCIDA developer to comply with the terms of a commercial agreement. The contract can specifically refer to the collection of municipal and regional DCCs, as well as land use and planning, building permits, the application of bylaws and property taxes/payments in lieu of taxes. An often-cited example of such an agreement is the “Accord between the City of Richmond and The Vancouver International Airport Authority” (1994). The Accord stipulates that the parties agree to the principle whereby tenants and sub-tenants at Sea Island will receive the same benefits and be subject to the same rules, regulations and charges as if they were occupying other than federal property within the municipality.
Servicing There are a number of servicing agreements currently being negotiated between local governments and First Nations within Metro Vancouver. In order to obtain municipal water
4902926 MC-52 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainly of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 7 of 9 and sewerage services for developments on Federal lands, a First Nation or developer in the case of a FNCIDA project, will need to negotiate a servicing agreement with the member municipality. In the case of sewerage, before the member municipality connects any sewer or drain that is part of a development that is not subject to its building and planning jurisdiction, the GVS&DD must be advised as per Section 29 of the GVS&DD Act and that that member, as well as the GVS&DD and service recipient should enter into a service agreement before the connection is made. Otherwise, the sewerage area will be subsidizing the development. It is through such a service agreement that the member municipality (and GVS&DD) could collect the equivalent of DCCs and ensure that the rest of the municipality is not subsidizing the development on Federal lands.
Evaluating Requests for Extensions of the Sewerage Area Boundaries Sewerage Area boundaries are an important “shape” of urban development patterns in the region. Inclusion in the Sewerage Area allows urban development to be served by the regional sewer system. It is GVS&DD procedure regarding extensions to Sewerage Area boundaries to accept requests from member local governments only (usually by Council resolution).
The following criteria are used by Metro Vancouver to evaluate Sewerage Area expansions:
Evaluation Criteria Purpose 1. Financial · To determine the financial impact that can result from the extension of sewer service or as a consequence of development, such as the cost of new facilities or upgrades to existing infrastructure 2. Technical and · To assess capacity of existing infrastructure to meet current Operational and future demand, suitability of the proposed connection point, or source control issues for industrial discharges 3. Land Use · To confirm compliance to existing municipal community plans Compliance and Regional Growth Strategy 4. Service Levels · To ensure that the extension of sewer service does not degrade service levels for existing serviced areas 5. Local and · To evaluate the potential encouragement for further Community Interests development and the impact of adjacent municipalities or communities 6. Regional Interests · To consider the regional interest of extending sewer service to residents because of social benefits, such as public health, that result from a clean environment · Other considerations may include: Rights-of-Way; taxation; and future expansion of regional facilities
Applications for extensions to the Sewerage Area take into consideration the overall criteria and growth management criteria outlined under the Regional Growth Strategy section above. If the review of these criteria reveals no impediment to approval, a recommendation for approval is submitted to the Board. If impediments to approval are identified, a recommendation for refusal is submitted to the Board.
4877153 MC-53 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 8 of 9
Application of Bylaws and Regulations As stated in LMTAC’s Discussion Paper, FNCIDA does not contemplate a role for local government as a regulator. Yet, if utility services are required (e.g. sewerage), the GVS&DD Board must approve any new utility service hook-ups. Once servicing is provided, the corresponding bylaws (e.g. air quality and liquid waste source control under both the Air Quality Management Plan and Liquid Waste Management Plan, respectively) also apply; in this case, Metro Vancouver undertakes permitting, regulation and enforcement, for air quality and liquid waste source control. Regional district staff works with the operator on the site, not the landowner. This practice should not be any different for potential FNCIDA projects; however, what’s not clear with FNCIDA is how this will work.
In addition, the Sewer Use Bylaw regulates the types of substances that can be discharged into sewers or sewerage facilities. The sewerage facilities in question are owned and operated by the GVS&DD pursuant to its enabling legislation. The discharge of prohibited substances into these sewerage facilities could cause problems with the operation of the facilities themselves and may have potentially harmful environmental impacts. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the Province has jurisdiction over municipal institutions (Section 92(8)) and, as such, has the power to enact legislation such as the GVS&DD Act and the Local Government Act. It also has the power to enact legislation authorizing municipal regulation of local activity that affects the environment, such as waste disposal (Section 30, Environmental Management Act). While this is not clear in FNCIDA legislation, the GVS&DD’s Sewer Use Bylaw should also apply to Indian Reserve lands if prohibited substances are discharged into a sewer that is connected to a sewerage facility operated by the GVS&DD.
3. ALTERNATIVES
The Intergovernmental Committee may wish to recommend that the Board:
(1) receive this report and the attached LMTAC Discussion Paper for information and take no further action; or
(2) provide additional direction and/or input to staff for further consideration of the report; or
(3) endorse this report and attached LMTAC Discussion Paper and convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional considerations identified in this report, and convey its comments to the Federal Minister, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), the Provincial Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR) and the respective Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) within the Metro Vancouver region in order to advance the discussion with senior governments on FNCIDA and FNCLTA.
Alternative (3) is recommended. Given the issues identified in LMTAC’s Discussion Paper and those identified in this report, it is imperative that the Board also convey its comments to the respective Federal and Provincial Ministers responsible for Aboriginal relations as well as MPs and MLAs within the Metro Vancouver region in order to advance local government issues and interests in discussions with senior governments on FNCIDA and FNCLTA.
4902926 MC-54 Comments on the “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainly of Land Title Act” Intergovernmental Committee Meeting Date: March 2, 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 9 of 9
4. CONCLUSION
The draft “LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act” has been sent to LMTAC-member jurisdictions for comment by March 16, 2011.
LMTAC’s Discussion Paper is intended to raise awareness of potential implications for local governments and identifies local government’s issues and interests with FNCIDA.
This report identifies additional considerations and recommends that the Board: endorse this report and the LMTAC Discussion Paper; convey its comments to LMTAC, noting the additional considerations; and convey its comments to the respective Federal and Provincial Ministers responsible for Aboriginal relations, as well as MPs and MLAs within the Metro Vancouver region in order to advance the discussion with the federal and provincial governments on FNCIDA and FNCLTA.
Attachment: LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act, dated December 10, 2010. (Orbit 4879443)
4877153 MC-55 December 10, 2010 DRAFT
LOWER Lower Mainland TAC MAINLAND Telephone (604) 451-6179 4th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Fax (604) 436-6860 Burnaby, B.C. TREATY E-mail: [email protected] V5H 4G8 ADVISORY Website: www.lmtac.bc.ca COMMITTEE
LMTAC Discussion Paper: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act
Executive Summary
The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) has been monitoring the development of the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA) since the latter received Royal Assent in the summer of 2010. The purpose of the two acts is to reduce the regulatory gap on commercial, industrial and residential market developments on reserve lands. As there has yet to be a project completed in British Columbia using FNCIDA and FNCLTA, there is a large amount of uncertainty regarding how the Province will implement projects and what the effect will be on local government. LMTAC has prepared this paper to address potential issues that should be considered in the implementation of any FNCIDA projects. The paper discusses the following issues: • Implementation and administration of FNCIDA agreements; • Implementation of an equitable property assessment system; • The effect of growing non-aboriginal populations on reserves, including the inequity of not charging school, hospital (TransLink) and regional district taxes; • Impact on existing service agreements; • An increase in Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) applications; • Cross-boundary impacts of large-scale FNCIDA developments; and • Impact of FNCIDA legislation on the BC Treaty Process.
LMTAC recognizes the potential for FNCIDA and FNCLTA to encourage socio-economic development on reserves and the potential for market development on reserves to be mutually beneficial for First Nations and neighbouring local governments. The purpose of this paper is to ensure that both the provincial and federal governments understand and consider the complex nature of the impacts that FNCIDA projects will have on local government, and emphasise the need for developing a comprehensive implementation strategy that addresses the issues and concerns identified herein, and supports the BC treaty process.
1 MC-56 December 10, 2010 DRAFT Introduction
The First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) process of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and its implications for municipalities and regional districts have gained increased profile with Lower Mainland local governments. Reasons for heightened local government interest in FNCIDA include: • Bill C-24: the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA), that provides amendments to FNCIDA, received Royal Assent on June 30th, 2010; • The Squamish Nation, a key proponent of Bill C-24 and one of the five First Nations in Canada promoting the original FNCIDA initiative, plans to use FNCIDA to develop condominium units on undeveloped reserve lands in both Vancouver and West Vancouver which potentially could increase the non-aboriginal population living on Squamish Nation reserves by up to 25,000 residents over the next 20 years; and • Potential linkages between the Additions-to-Reserves (ATR) process and FNCIDA exist. A number of local government concerns have been recently identified around the ATR process in LMTAC’s discussion paper “Local Government Issues and Interests on the Federal Additions-to-Reserves Process,” some of which brought-up the need for further discussion on FNCIDA and its impacts on local governments.
Background on Federal FNCIDA and FNCLTA Legislation
The FNCIDA went into force in 2006. It was developed as a cooperative effort between the Government of Canada and five First Nations, including the Squamish Nation. Its purpose is to increase the competitiveness of commercial and industrial development on Indian Reserves1 by allowing for the replication of relevant provincial regulations, on a project-by-project basis. However, FNCIDA did not allow for the duplication of provincial land title registration systems, which has limited its effectiveness. Land interests on reserves are registered under the federal Indian Lands Registry System (ILRS), which contains two registration systems: the Reserve Land Register (RLR) and the Surrendered and Designated Lands Register (SDLR). Both the RLR and SDLR are deeds-based systems that do not guarantee legal protection to the same level as the provincial Torrens-based system.2 The FNCLTA was proposed to address this shortcoming by allowing participating First Nations to request the establishment of a regulatory system equivalent to the provincial land title system.
The Squamish Nation was at the forefront of the FNCLTA legislation as it is the only one of the original five partnering First Nations that has proposed land development through FNCIDA.
The FNCIDA Process
The FNCIDA process is initiated by the First Nation3 and follows the four steps described below:4
1 An Indian Reserve can be described as the area of land that is held in trust by the Federal Crown for the use and benefit of an Indian Band (First Nation). As Federal land held under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, local government bylaws and provincial land use legislation are of no effect on Indian Reserves. 2 Registration under a Torrens System provides indefeasible title. 3 It should be noted that only Chiefs and Council make the decision to request a project, not band members. 4 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, “FNCIDA Process, Roles and Responsibilities,” http://www.ainc- inac.gc.ca/ecd/cid/prr-eng.asp 2 MC-57 December 10, 2010 DRAFT 1. Project Identification and Proposal a. The First Nation develops a formal written proposal describing the project and requested regulations; b. The First Nation, the INAC Regional Office, and key stakeholders hold exploratory discussions to determine project eligibility; and c. The First Nation passes a Band Council Resolution requesting the development of regulations under FNCIDA. 2. Project Review and Selection a. The First Nation works with INAC to perform a legal risk assessment and cost- benefit analysis; b. INAC undertakes a detailed evaluation of the proposed project to determine its feasibility and eligibility. In order for a project to qualify under FNCIDA, a positive answer must be given to the following five questions: i. Do the lands involved in the project meet all the requirements (legal, policy, etc.) so that INAC is able to issue land tenure? ii. Is there currently a lack of regulations to deal with environmental or health and safety issues, regardless of the degree of possible impact? iii. If there is a lack of existing regulations, and, if so, is it preventing economic development and is there no other regulatory regime that could be used to implement the project? iv. Have all other alternatives for regulating the project, including the Indian Act, been considered and ruled out, and is use of FNCIDA the only possible approach? v. Is the province supportive in-principle of the project, and will the province be willing to play a role in the administration and enforcement of the regulations that would be developed under FNCIDA? 3. Negotiation and Drafting Stage a. The following project work plans are developed: i. Resources required for project implementation; ii. List of key milestones; iii. Stakeholder engagement plans; iv. Risk management strategies; and v. Timelines. b. Close consultation between the Government of Canada, the First Nation, and the Province occurs in order to develop the following three documents: i. The Regulations; ii. The Tripartite Agreement; and iii. The Land Tenure Instruments. 4. Administration, Monitoring, and Enforcement a. Construction and operation of the project begins; b. The Province administers, monitors, and enforces the regulations as agreed to in the Tripartite Agreement; and c. Administration, monitoring, and enforcement are ongoing until the conclusion of the project.
3 MC-58 December 10, 2010 DRAFT Identification of Local Government Issues and Concerns
The FNCIDA legislation and FNCLTA amendments appear to be excellent tools for First Nations to attract residential, commercial and industrial development to their communities in support of socio-economic development. The goals of FNCIDA and FNCLTA deserve to be supported. However, as with any new program or legislation, it is a prudent practice to analyze FNCIDA and FNCLTA to identify any potential issues that might arise during the implementation process. Based on a review of the FNCIDA and FNCLTA policies and legislation, and feedback received from several Lower Mainland local government jurisdictions, including those that might be directly affected by potential FNCIDA projects, the following issues and concerns have been identified:
Concern #1: Implementation and Administration of FNCIDA Agreements
• FINCIDA is federal legislation but, as part of the tripartite agreement signed in Stage 4 of the FNCIDA process, it is implemented and administered by the participating provincial government. The Province determines how it will approach the implementation and administration of any FNCIDA agreement. As no FNCIDA agreements have been completed thus far, it is uncertain how the Province will implement future FNCIDA projects undertaken in British Columbia. As regulations for FNCIDA projects need to be developed on a project-by-project basis, the FNCIDA process is one that will be time consuming and expensive. As such, it is important that the Province clarify how it will implement and administer FNCIDA projects in BC. Specifically, clarity is needed regarding the following issues: o Which provincial body will be responsible for FNCIDA agreements? Will the Province designate a specific body for all future agreements, or will it vary on a project-to-project basis? o How will the Province ensure that new residential, commercial, and industrial development on reserve lands is planned in consultation and coordination with neighbouring municipalities and regional districts? o How will the Province ensure application of construction (BC Building Code), workplace (WorkSafeBC), and environmental standards for FNCIDA projects? o How will the Province ensure implementation of a property assessment system equivalent to BC Assessment (BCA) for FNCIDA projects? and o How will the Province ensure that developments on reserve lands, particularly non-aboriginal market housing, pay appropriate taxes including hospital (TransLink), school, and regional district taxes.
Concern #2: The Implementation of an Assessment System Equivalent to the BCA
• An accurate property assessment roll system is a necessary prerequisite for FNCIDA projects as it will be used to determine costs of services when negotiating future service agreements/contracts with the applicant First Nation (FN), as well as appropriate taxation levels on any new industrial, commercial or residential development.
• Under provincial legislation — the Indian Self Government Enabling Act (ISGEA) — all First Nations in BC have opted to implement independent taxation systems. Independent taxation authority has removed provincial taxes from reserves, allowing First Nations to 4 MC-59 December 10, 2010 DRAFT implement their own taxation and property assessment bylaws. First Nations taxation bylaw systems are developed under one of two federal legislation options and are subject to approval by the federal government or the First Nations Tax Commission (FNTC), depending on which legislation is used. For property assessment services, First Nations have three options: contract with BC Assessment (BCA), hire a tax agent to prepare the assessment roll, or prepare the assessment roll on their own. Most First Nations (61%), including the Squamish Nation5, have opted to contract with BCA for maintaining their property assessment rolls. Notwithstanding, the experience of several Lower Mainland local governments is that FN assessment rolls have been an issue when negotiating servicing agreements with First Nations.
• How will FNCIDA projects utilize either the BCA system or an equivalent system for property assessment rolls? The purpose of the FNCLTA amendments is to allow FNCIDA projects to be registered under regulations equivalent to the rest of the province. However, there are no measures contained within FNCLTA to ensure that an equivalent property assessment roll process is used. A comprehensive and accurate property assessment roll, equivalent to that of the BCA, is necessary to ensure that the appropriate amount of taxes are levied on FNCIDA projects. The Province must ensure an acceptable property assessment system will be implemented for FNCIDA projects.
Concern #3: The Effect of Growing Non-Aboriginal Populations on Reserves
• FNCIDA and FNCLTA legislation will increase new industrial, commercial and residential development on reserve lands. Many of the new developments, such as residential market housing, will be occupied by non-aboriginals. In the Lower Mainland and Sunshine Coast, for instance, non-aboriginals accounted for an estimated 46% of reserve populations, or approximately 3,800 out of an estimated 8,200 total reserve population, in 2006.6 Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh reserve land is home to the largest non-aboriginal populations, each with nearly 1,200 non-member residents amounting to over 80% of the reserve population in the case of Tsleil-Waututh and over 30% in the case of Squamish.
• As the non-aboriginal population living on reserves is likely to grow as a result of FNCIDA projects, it is necessary to reiterate local government concerns regarding the representation and taxation of non-members residing in First Nations jurisdictions. Local government concerns are as follows: o Populations living on reserve lands do not pay school, hospital (TransLink), and regional district taxes. As a consequence, non-aboriginal residential populations living on reserve lands are being “subsidized” by their neighbouring municipal tax payers. o Non-member residents living on reserve land do not have the right to vote in elections for First Nation governments, but will be subjected to the laws and taxes established by those First Nation governments. In other words, there is no accountability to non-member residents living on reserve who pay taxes.
5 Other Lower Mainland First Nations that utilized BCA services in 2009 include: Tsawwassen, Musqueam, Tsleil- Waututh, Sechelt, and Matsqui (BCA 2009 Annual Report) 6 Population was estimated using 2006 Community Profiles Census Data and INAC 2006 First Nations Profiles 5 MC-60 December 10, 2010 DRAFT o There needs to be full fiscal transparency regarding taxes, fees and charges assessed to residents living on reserve land to prevent “hidden” charges being levied as taxes. o Most First Nations do not tax their aboriginal members while at the same time imposing property taxes on non-aboriginal residents on reserve. This creates a situation of “representation without taxation” for aboriginal members living on reserve while simultaneously subjecting the non-aboriginals residents on reserve to “taxation without representation”. This concern has been addressed more in- depth in a discussion paper prepared by LMTAC in 2003.7 o Local governments are concerned that aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents living on First Nation reserve land are permitted to participate in local government elections of their neighbouring municipality or regional district; in other words, “representation without taxation”. o With regard to those living on reserve, the BC Voters’ Guide8 states the following: “If the reserve is within a municipality and you are otherwise eligible to vote, you can vote in the municipal election. If the reserve is not within a municipality but within a regional district and you are otherwise eligible to vote, you can vote for the electoral area director in the election held by the regional district. This applies to non-aboriginal leaseholders as well.”
Concern #4: Impact on Existing Service Agreements between Local Governments and First Nations
• Increased residential, commercial and industrial development on reserves may result in the applicant First Nation desiring changes to existing service agreements with local governments. In 2008, for instance, the Squamish Nation expressed an interest to enter into more comprehensive service agreements. Meanwhile, the Province declared it would undertake a consultation process with those municipalities affected by the Squamish Nation’s desire for a change in service agreements, as well as with Metro Vancouver and TransLink.
• The Squamish Nation envisions replicating municipal bylaws, as part of its service agreements, using municipal officials to enforce the bylaws on a fee-for-service basis.9 The Province, unaware of existing agreements containing similar provisions, has been unable to identify potential implications for the participating municipalities. The Province again declared that it would consult with the affected municipalities to identify any potential issues regarding the matter.
• As regulations are developed for FNCIDA projects on an individual basis, various issues, such as the Squamish Nation’s desire to replicate municipal bylaws, will arise for different projects. The Province needs to develop an approach to deal with such issues in an efficient manner, one that incorporates the input of affected parties, including local governments, in the case of the Squamish Nation proposal.
7 LMTAC, “Democracy and First Nation Self-Government: Considering Rights of Representation for Non-member Residents in First Nations Jurisdictions,” March 2003. 8 “BC Voters’ Guide,” http://www.municipalelections.com/faq_elections.html#fnv 9 The District of West Vancouver currently processes building permits for the Squamish Nation for developments on Squamish Nation lands, but the District does not use West Vancouver’s building permit process/system — the District only processes the paperwork. 6 MC-61 December 10, 2010 DRAFT
• FNCIDA does not contemplate a role for local government as regulator. However, certain utility services (e.g. sewerage) require approval from local government authorities such as the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District10 (GVS&DD) board. As FNCIDA projects will take place on federal lands,11 there is an issue regarding how local government will regulate sewerage from federal lands through the municipal system that ends up in the GVS&DD system. Currently, there is no way to regulate such sewerage. Furthermore, corresponding bylaws for servicing also apply regarding air quality and liquid waste control under the provincially-mandated Liquid Waste Management Plan and Air Quality Management Plan, both of which are predicated on municipal Official Community Plans and the Regional Growth Strategy, and both of which preclude servicing of developments not contemplated within the plans.
• Metro Vancouver undertakes permitting, regulation and enforcement for air quality and liquid waste source control,12 while regional district staff works with the developer/operator on the site, not the landowner. This practice should not be any different for potential FNCIDA projects. It is unclear how relevant municipal and regional district authorities will be able to undertake permitting, regulation, and enforcement related to FNCIDA projects.
Concern #5: An Increase in Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Applications
• ATR applications are designed to allow First Nations to add land to their reserves mainly to accommodate community growth as well as meet social and commercial needs. While land acquired under the ATR process is not intended to be used for market development, there are no mechanisms in place to monitor the use of the ATR lands once the application has been approved.13 Therefore, it is possible that land acquired under ATR could be used for commercial and industrial development under FNCIDA, including residential market housing, contrary to the original purpose of the ATR policy.
• On the INAC website, under the “Process, Roles and Responsibilities” section of the FNCIDA Process, the following appears under the information required in the project proposal to be submitted in Step 1 – Project Identification and Proposal: “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.”
• The existing link between land acquired under ATR and land available for FNCIDA projects contradicts the intrinsic purpose of the ATR policy to address land constraint issues such as expansion for band member housing. INAC must clarify this inconsistency as the ability to use ATR land for market development activities may lead to an increase
10 The GVS&DD Act authorizes the GVS&DD to “by by-law, impose development cost charges on every person who obtains from a member municipality (a) approval of a subdivision, or (b) a building permit authorizing the construction, alteration, or extension of a building or structure” (GVS&DD Act). 11 As a matter of Constitutional law, certain lands and undertakings — such as “Indians and Lands reserved for Indians,” as well as airports, ports, federal government buildings, and other federal lands — are within the federal government’s jurisdiction. For the most part, municipalities do not, and are legally barred from, regulating land use and building construction on such lands. 12 Metro Vancouver treats operators on federal properties the same way as it would any other operator on non- federal lands regarding both air quality and liquid waste. For example, Metro Vancouver has air quality permits for non-port activities that take place on federal port lands, particularly if such operations involve diesel fuel. 13 LMTAC, “Local Government Issues and Concerns on the Federal Additions-to-Reserves Process,” 2010. 7 MC-62 December 10, 2010 DRAFT in ATR applications driven by a desire to further capitalize on market development opportunities. Furthermore, a misuse of land acquired under the ATR process may lead to problems in the future when actual land constraints are being experienced, and there is far less crown land available to be added to reserves.
Concern #6: Cross Boundary Impact of Large-Scale Development
• The cross-boundary impact of large scale development on the reserves of participating First Nations will affect adjacent municipalities and regional districts. Large-scale projects already create challenges between neighbouring municipal jurisdictions regarding the servicing of new developments. Large-scale residential, commercial and industrial developments on reserves will challenge First Nations’ and local governments’ ability to provide proper levels of service to the growing population of non-aboriginal residents living on reserves.
• Large-scale developments lead to an increased demand for services such as water, sewer, drainage, solid waste, policing, fire protection, library, recreation, parks, roads and transit. Municipalities, regional districts and TransLink impose Development Cost Charges (DCCs) on developers as one-time fees to offset the costs related to providing these services,14 and DCCs are imposed by municipalities, regional districts and TransLink on every new residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development. It needs to be clarified how, and by whom, such DCCs (or some reasonable facsimile thereof), including the provincially-mandated TransLink real estate / density / land lift development charges, will be collected from FNCIDA projects in order to avoid FNCIDA projects being “subsidized” by neighbouring municipal taxpayers.15 This issue has heightened importance given the large and very costly sewer, water and transit infrastructure projects anticipated within Metro Vancouver over the next two decades.
• Official Community Plans and Regional Growth Strategies are used to ensure that land use and development are coordinated in an appropriate manner that follow best practices and maximizes the value and utility of the specific land being developed and the surrounding region as a whole. While First Nation reserves may be legally separate from neighbouring municipalities and regional districts, the geographical connection cannot be ignored, particularly when it comes to residential, commercial and industrial market development. Therefore, FNCIDA projects need to take into account community and regional growth and servicing plans, to the benefit of both neighbouring jurisdictions and the Indian Reserves. Measures must be put in place to ensure that FNCIDA projects are implemented in a manner that is consistent with municipal Official Community Plans and Regional Growth Strategies of the neighbouring jurisdictions.
Concern #7: Impact on the BC Treaty Process
• Considering the potential benefits of the FNCIDA legislation, the Squamish Nation has indicated that it lacks incentive to pursue treaty negotiations. In other words, FNCIDA
14 BC Ministry of Community and Rural Development, Local Government Department 15 There is no way for the District of West Vancouver to collect DCC’s because West Vancouver has no authority for the lands upon which the development takes place.
8 MC-63 December 10, 2010 DRAFT actively discourages some First Nations from pursuing a treaty. As treaty negotiations require a substantial financial commitment on the part of participating First Nations, some may view the economic gains from residential, commercial and industrial development on reserve to outweigh the benefits of completing a treaty, especially when the costs of treaty negotiations are considered.
• The potential abandonment of treaty negotiations by First Nations is a concern for many reasons. Finalized treaties provide certainty regarding asserted rights and title, land claims and other aboriginal interests. This certainty resolves numerous issues regarding the interaction between First Nations and various government bodies. The requirement to consult with First Nations, tribal councils, and territory groups/associations regarding activities taking place within their traditional territories is just one example of the uncertainties arising in the absence of treaties.
• It is unclear what the implications will be of concluding a treaty after a FNCIDA project is completed. The FNCIDA legislation is clear that the project must be on reserve land to be eligible for implementing the regulatory systems provided by both FNCIDA and FNCLTA. There needs to be clarity as to what will happen to those regulatory systems if a treaty is concluded and the land used by FNCIDA projects become treaty settlement land rather than reserve land.
Local Government Issues and Interests
LMTAC recommends that the local government issues and concerns outlined above be addressed in the FNCIDA process through consideration of the following interests:
Concern #1: Implementation and Administration of FNCIDA Agreements
• All levels of government need to take a consistent approach toward the implementation of FNCIDA and FNCLTA legislation in British Columbia. Even though the Squamish Nation is currently the only First Nation moving towards a FNCIDA agreement in this province, other First Nations may follow suit in the near future. Early involvement of local governments in the FNCIDA implementation process provides an excellent opportunity to shape how future FNCIDA agreements may be implemented and administered. As such, it is imperative that the Province undertake extensive consultation with local governments throughout the implementation process, so that issues that are likely to resurface during future FINCDA projects can be identified and mitigated as early as possible.
Concern #2: The Implementation of an Assessment System Equivalent to the BCA
• An accurate property assessment roll system is a necessary prerequisite for FNCIDA projects as it will be used to determine the cost of services when negotiating future service agreements/contracts with the First Nation applicant, as well as appropriate taxation levels on any new industrial, commercial or residential development. The Province must ensure that FNCIDA projects utilize either the BCA system or an equivalent system for preparing property assessment rolls, and that the First Nation’s assessment roll is maintained and up-dated on an on-going basis. 9 MC-64 December 10, 2010 DRAFT
• Assessment of property values on-reserve lands must be calculated in a manner comparable to those located off-reserve. The value of the actual land should not be excluded from the assessment roll due to its federal ownership. Calculating only the value of the physical property results in an underestimation of the actual property value leading to discrepancies of value between comparable on-reserve and off-reserve properties. Such inconsistencies in property assessments become an issue when negotiating service agreements and levying appropriate levels of taxes.
Concern #3: The Affect of an Increasing Non-Aboriginal Population on Reserves
• The non-aboriginal population living on reserve lands must pay school, hospital (TransLink), and regional district taxes to ensure equity and fairness with their neighbours and avoid being “subsidized” by their neighbouring municipal tax payers. It should be a priority of all levels of government to ensure that the inherent rights of all Canadian citizens are protected.
• As a prerequisite to provincial support for implementing FNCIDA projects, particularly residential market housing, the First Nation applicant should consent to any FNCIDA development paying school, TransLink, hospital, and regional district taxes. Such ‘taxation’ would need to be accompanied by ‘representation’ on the regional district board.
• Regarding non-member representation on reserves, the position of Lower Mainland local governments is expressed in LMTAC First Principle #27, as follows:
27. Treaties must uphold the principle of “no taxation without representation” for all persons residing on treaty settlement lands. Mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that all persons who are living on treaty settlement lands and who are paying taxes or levies to the First Nation have access and a voice in First Nation governance systems.
LMTAC’s discussion paper titled “Democracy and First Nation Self-Government: Considering Rights of Representation for Non-Member Residents in First Nations Jurisdictions”, completed in 2003, provides further background information on the issues of representation and taxation regarding non-members living on reserve lands.
• While the above First Principle was created to address scenarios in the BC Treaty Process, the same underlying interest applies in the FNCIDA context, where an increase in the non- aboriginal population living on reserve land and potential treaty settlement land is expected.
• Both the provincial and federal governments must ensure that First Nations provide fair and equitable representation and property tax treatment of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents living on reserves to avoid situations of “taxation without representation” for non- aboriginals while maintaining “representation without taxation” for aboriginals.
• As a prerequisite to provincial support for implementing FNCIDA projects, particularly residential market housing, the First Nation applicant for FNCIDA development should agree to implement a system for non-member representation on all matters related to services and taxation to ensure some degree of fiscal accountability. 10 MC-65 December 10, 2010 DRAFT
• As a prerequisite to provincial support for implementing FNCIDA projects, particularly residential market housing, the First Nation applicant for FNCIDA development should agree to implement a system for ensuring fiscal transparency regarding taxes, fees and charges assessed to non-aboriginal residents living on reserve land.
• As a prerequisite to provincial support for implementing FNCIDA projects, the Province needs to replicate relevant provincial legislation such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to ensure transparency and accountability for FNCIDA developments. The federal government also must enact appropriate legislation to ensure transparency and accountability on Indian Reserves.
• If the contemplated FNCIDA development proposal is a residential condominium project or multi-unit commercial development, then the Province needs to replicate relevant provincial legislation such as the Strata Property Act. While the Strata Property Act usually allows purchasers to hold fee simple title to their holdings, along with a proportional fee simple holding in the common building,16 non-aboriginals cannot hold such title on reserve lands. However, the Strata Property Act allows for leasehold title in cases where the freehold owner is a public authority.17 As FNCIDA projects will remain part of reserves, the federal government should be able to act as the freehold owner of FNCIDA projects, allowing for leasehold interest to be applied to FNCIDA developments. The FNCLTA amendments should allow for the required land title registration and assurance funds needed to implement the Strata Property Act.
• If the FNCIDA development proposal is a multi-unit residential rental project, as contemplated by the Squamish Nation for their reserve lands in the City of Vancouver, then the Province needs to replicate relevant provincial legislation such as the Residential Tenancy Act to ensure that the rights (and obligations) of renters are protected in a manner equivalent to renters not living on reserve lands.
• The Province must ensure that both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents living on reserve not be allowed to participate in neighbouring local government elections unless those residents living on reserve pay full municipal, regional district, school and hospital (TransLink) taxes. Such ‘taxation’ would need to be accompanied by ‘representation’ on the regional district board.
Concern #4: Impact on Service Agreements between Local Governments and First Nations
• Local governments must be consulted during the FNCIDA proposal process regarding the potential impact on existing service agreements and/or the requirement for new service agreements. This consultation should take place at the earliest possible opportunity in order to identify any technical or policy issues resulting from proposed FNCIDA projects. Issues regarding service agreements are particularly important due to the fact that multiple service agreements are currently being negotiated in the Lower Mainland.
16 Mangan, Mike “The Condominium Manual: A Comprehensive Guide to the Strata Property Act,” 2nd Ed. (Vancouver: British Columbia Real Estate Association, 2004). 17 Strata Property Act, S.B.C., 1998. 11 MC-66 December 10, 2010 DRAFT
• The Province must determine the potential legal implications for municipalities regarding enforcement of bylaws and regulations on reserve lands as part service agreements with First nations. Similarly, the Province must determine the legal implications for regional districts regarding permitting, regulation and enforcement of regional district regulations on First Nation reserve lands; for example, sewer district regulations, water district regulations, and air quality regulations. Operations on federal lands (in this case reserves) should be treated the same as they would be off-federal lands.
• The Province stated that it intended to consult with local governments and relevant agencies regarding issues surrounding preliminary discussions on Squamish Nation development proposals. This inclusion of local governments in the FNCIDA process also must be continued as part of the process after the Squamish Nation submits an official FNCIDA proposal; as well as being part of any future FNCIDA projects.
• Lower Mainland local governments support an all-in approach, or 100% cost-recovery model of service provision to First Nations that include Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and sinking funds for future infrastructure replacement. Lower Mainland local governments welcome an opportunity to renegotiate service agreements to this level with participating First Nations.
• As FNICDA projects will be implemented on a project-by-project basis, the process of negotiating service agreements for every FNCIDA project will be both costly and time consuming for local governments. As such, service agreements should be negotiated following the all-in approach requiring only an increase in levels of service delivery for additional developments under FNCIDA, rather than an increase in types of services.
• Provincial and federal legislation to allow municipal and regional district authorities to implement relevant bylaws and regulations for services provided on First Nation reserve lands must be included in the Province’s plan to administer FNCIDA projects.
• As a prerequisite to local governments entering into servicing agreements for FNCIDA projects, particularly residential market housing, the First Nation should agree to the application of municipal and regional district Development Cost Charges on FNCIDA projects, as well as the provincially-mandated TransLink real estate / density / land lift development charges, and also agree that the FNCIDA development will pay school, hospital (TransLink), and regional district taxes. Such ‘taxation’ would need to be accompanied by ‘representation’ on the regional district board.
Concern #5: An Increase in Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) Applications
• There are currently no legal mechanisms in place to prevent First Nations from using land acquired under the ATR process for market development instead of addressing land constraints regarding community use, band member housing, etc. This gap in land use monitoring needs to be addressed to ensure that ATR applications are not submitted with the intent of using ATR land for residential, commercial and industrial market development to capitalize on the opportunities provided by FNCIDA and FNCLTA.
12 MC-67 December 10, 2010 DRAFT
• The federal government needs to implement a legal mechanism to ensure that First Nations do not submit an ATR application for acceptable land constraint issues, such as band member housing, only to use it for market development after the application is approved. This is particularly important due to the opportunities for residential market housing on reserve lands provided by FNCIDA and FNCLTA.
• The federal government needs to clarify the allowance of land acquired under the ATR process to be used for FNCIDA projects as ATR is supposed to be used for land constraint issues, not market development such as contemplated for FNCIDA projects.
Concern #6: Cross Boundary Impact of Large-Scale Development
• Issues regarding large-scale developments affecting multiple jurisdictions are challenges that already exist between neighbouring municipalities, and are likely to exist in regard to residential, commercial and industrial development on First Nation reserves. The Province must consult with the affected local government jurisdictions to minimize potential conflicts and issues.
• Development Cost Charges, including relevant TransLink real estate / density / land lift development charges, need to be imposed on FNCIDA projects in order to prevent a fee- exempt environment being used to provide extra incentive for developers to construct their projects on reserve land. Neighbouring municipalities and regional districts need to be compensated in order to offset the extra costs incurred when providing services to the new development.
• This compensation mechanism could involve collecting DCCs from developers of FNCIDA projects. However, municipalities and regional districts will be unable to directly collect DCCs from FNCIDA projects as they will take place on federal land, which is outside the local government jurisdiction. In order to ensure that local governments are not “subsidizing” developments on federal lands, service agreements must allow for collecting fees equivalent to DCCs.18
• As a prerequisite to provincial support for implementing FNCIDA projects, the First Nation applicant should consent to DCCs, or equivalent fees, being accounted for in service agreements, including relevant TransLink real estate / density / land lift development charges, being assessed against FNCIDA development projects in order to avoid FNCIDA projects being “subsidized” by neighbouring municipal tax payers.
• FNCIDA projects must be consistent with municipal Official Community Plans (OCPs) and also must be incorporated into Regional Growth Strategies (RGSs). This would enable FNCIDA projects to be incorporated into the regional district’s Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to thereby legally permit servicing and facilitate proper regulatory management. This must be
18 An example of an agreement between local government and a federal agency is the “Accord between the City of Richmond and the Vancouver International Airport Authority” signed in 1994. The agreement specifically refers to the collection of DCCs. The accord stipulates that the parties agree to the principle whereby tenants and sub-tenants are subject to the same rules, regulations, and charges as if they were occupying other than federal property within the municipality. 13 MC-68 December 10, 2010 DRAFT accomplished during the FNCIDA proposal review process by consulting with the relevant municipal and regional authorities.
• Furthermore, there should be a “sunset clause”19 on proposed FNCIDA projects that ensures that they are completed in a reasonable timeframe. If development plans are delayed for a long period of time, it becomes difficult for neighbouring municipalities to consider the impact of the proposed projects on OCPs and subsequently meet their own development objectives and needs.
Concern #7: Impact on the BC Treaty Process
• LMTAC First Principle #7 declares the support of local governments for the BC Treaty Process, as follows: 7. Local governments strongly support the need for final treaty settlements to provide certainty with respect to Aboriginal rights and title.
• Economic development initiatives under the auspices of the FNCIDA and FNCLTA legislation should not be viewed as an alternative to the treaty process. While the legislation provides economic opportunities previously not available to First Nations, the treaty process addresses issues far beyond economic development. It is in the best interests of all parties involved to continue moving towards finalized treaties.
• The Province must ensure that residential populations living on reserve as a result of market housing developments, along with commercial and industrial business projects, pay full regional district, school and hospital (TransLink) taxes to avoid developments implemented under FNCIDA legislation being an economic disincentive to First Nations pursuing treaties in BC. Such ‘taxation’ would need to be accompanied by ‘representation’ on the regional district board.
• Both the provincial and federal governments must develop a means for ensuring a seamless transition of the regulations governing developments under FNCIDA to an autonomous Treaty First Nation, where treaties are completed after FNCIDA projects have already been approved. Not having a strategy in place to deal with this possibility could result in uncertainty for developers that might become an obstacle to the pursuit of future projects under the FNCIDA and FNCLTA legislation.
• All of the issues and concerns identified in this discussion paper are addressed by treaties such as the one concluded with the Tsawwassen First Nation. However, facilitation of FNCIDA developments without addressing the issues and concerns identified herein would be an ill-conceived half-measure that perpetuates problems and inequities, and undermines the treaty process.
• The federal and provincial governments need to give careful consideration to developing a comprehensive implementation strategy that addresses these issues and concerns, and supports the treaty process.
19 A “sunset clause” is part of an agreement that is used to repeal the agreement if certain conditions are not met within a specified period of time. 14 MC-69 December 10, 2010 DRAFT Next Steps
This discussion paper is intended to identify the general issues and interests of Lower Mainland local governments with respect to the FNCIDA and FNCLTA legislation. Individual local governments will have additional issues and interests that reflect the unique nature, needs, perspectives, and circumstances of their communities in relation to the specifics of proposed development plans under FNCIDA.
Furthermore, while the overall concept of FNCIDA (to close the regulatory gap on reserve) has its merits, the biggest drawback for FNCIDA is that it is, as yet, untested and unproven. Potential alternatives to FNCIDA should be explored if the obstacles of the single-application approach for each development/project prove to be too cumbersome. For example, under the Indian Act, section 4(2), the Governor-in-Council can declare the Indian Act inapplicable to all or a portion of any Indian Reserve lands. Pursuing such an alternative could prove to be more manageable.
Next steps should include establishing a dialogue with the Province, Federal government and First Nation entities regarding the concerns expressed in this paper, and agreeing on a mechanism to keep local governments informed and involved in the FNCIDA process, and individual development projects that arise from this process, especially the Squamish Nation projects, as those projects will likely have a significant impact on how future FNCIDA projects are handled in BC.
15 MC-70 Item 5.3
Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011
To: Mayors Committee
From: Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Corporate Secretary’s Department
Date: January 18, 2011
Subject: 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Dates
Recommendation: That the Mayors Committee establish the day, hour and place for its 2011 regular meetings as follows:
Day and Hour Wednesday, March 16 9:00 am Wednesday, June 22 9:00 am Wednesday, October 26 9:00 am
Place Meetings will be held in the 2nd floor boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia unless otherwise specified on the Metro Vancouver public notice board, Metro Vancouver website, and the respective agenda.
1. PURPOSE
To establish the day, hour and place of committee meetings.
2. CONTEXT
The Procedure Bylaw requires the board and committees to decide from time to time by resolution the day, hour and place its regular meetings will be held. In developing the monthly calendar, consideration is given to scheduling 2 board meetings, 14 standing committees, 4 advisory committees, as well as statutory holidays, conferences for elected officials, and spring break. While it is inevitable that members will encounter meeting conflicts, quorum is rarely jeopardized.
3. ALTERNATIVES
None presented.
4773235 MC-72 2011 Mayors Committee Meeting Dates Mayors Committee Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Page 2 of 2
4. CONCLUSION
The committee will have met the requirements of the board Procedure Bylaw by establishing the day, hour and place of its regular meetings, and the public can plan to attend such meetings.
MC-73 INFORMATION ITEMS
MC-74
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.
MC-75 Lower Mainland TAC LOWER LMTAC Staff 4th Floor MAINLAND Telephone (604) 451-6179 4330 Kingsway TREATY Fax (604) 436-6860 Burnaby, B.C. ADVISORY E-mail: [email protected] V5H 4G8 COMMITTEE Website: www.lmtac.bc.ca
BRIEFING NOTE
To: LMTAC Member Boards and Councils
From: LMTAC Staff
Report Date: February 10th, 2011.
Subject: Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act
ISSUE
First Nations’ Property Development Using FNCIDA and FNCLTA
• Squamish Nation publicized its intention to construct large-scale commercial and condominium developments on its Indian Reserves located in Vancouver and in West Vancouver/North Vancouver, where more than 25,000 additional residents could reside over the next 20 years. The projects are to be developed under Federal legislation: the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA). • Local governments have identified a number of issues and interests that need to be considered by the Province in drafting the enabling legislation required to implement FNCIDA and FNCLTA in British Columbia. • As no FNCIDA projects have been approved thus far in BC, local governments have a unique opportunity to have their concerns put forward to the Provincial and Federal governments in order to shape how FNCIDA projects will be implemented in the province.
BACKGROUND
FNCIDA and FNCLTA
• FNCIDA was enacted in 2006. It was developed as a cooperative effort between the Federal government and five First Nations across Canada, including the Squamish Nation. FNCIDA’s purpose is to increase the competitiveness of commercial and industrial development on reserve lands by allowing for relevant Provincial regulations to be replicated on reserves. • Currently, Provincial regulations do not apply on Indian Reserves. Developers often view the resulting lack of regulatory certainty as a disadvantage to constructing projects on reserves. • The effectiveness of FNCIDA was limited by its inability to duplicate Provincial land title registration systems. Interests on Reserve lands are registered under the Federal Indian Lands Registry System (ILRS), which contains two registration systems: the Reserve Land Register (RLR) and the Surrendered and Designated Lands Register (SDLR). • Both the RLR and SDLR are deeds-based systems that do not guarantee legal protection to the same level as the Provincial Torrens-based lands registry system. FNCLTA legislation was subsequently drafted and passed in July 2010 to address this shortcoming, thereby allowing participating First Nations to request the establishment of a regulatory system equivalent to the Provincial land title system.
1 MC-76 OVERVIEW
FNCIDA Process
• FNCIDA projects can be initiated by any First Nation, on a voluntary basis. The applicant First Nation submits a proposal which will be reviewed for eligibility by the Federal government. In demonstrating eligibility, the land to be used must be confirmed as Indian Reserve land or currently proposed as Indian Reserve land through the Federal Additions-to-Reserve (ATR) policy. • The applicant First Nation must demonstrate that the lack of existing regulations is an impediment for proceeding with the development project, and that no other regulatory regime can be used to effectively implement it. • The Province must be supportive of the project and agree to administer, monitor and enforce the regulations developed for the project. • The regulations are then developed and a tripartite agreement is signed between the First Nation, the Province, and the Federal government.
Role of Local Government
• There is no defined role for local government in the FNCIDA process. Stakeholder consultation is required while the Province drafts the regulations, but local governments are not explicitly referenced. • It is understood that the Province will require First Nations to negotiate service agreements with neighbouring municipalities and regional districts to service any FNCIDA project. At this time, negotiation of service agreements appears to be the only mechanism for local government involvement in the FNCIDA process.
IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
• The implementation of FNCIDA projects will have significant impacts on local governments, including taxation fairness, added servicing costs, capacity planning and other cross-boundary impacts of large developments.
Taxation Fairness
• As First Nations begin using FNCIDA to develop large, market housing projects, significant increases of non-Aboriginal populations living on Indian Reserves will ensue. If not managed properly, the increased demand for ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ services could have substantial negative impacts on both cost-recovery and service capacity of neighbouring municipalities and regional districts. • Non-Aboriginal populations currently living on Reserve lands, which make-up the majority of people living on Indian Reserves today in the Lower Mainland, do not pay school, hospital, TransLink, or regional district taxes. • Non-Aboriginal populations living on Reserve lands will also access services provided by both neighbouring municipalities and regional district and, therefore, will be “subsidized” by their neighbouring municipal and regional district tax payers unless a mechanism is implemented that allows for local governments to receive “full-cost-recovery” for services provided. • While it may be possible to recover some of these costs through service agreements with First Nations, municipalities and regional districts are not confident that all costs will be recovered.
Cross-Boundary Impacts
• Increasing commercial, industrial, and market residential developments on Reserve lands will lead to an increased demand for municipal and regional services.
2 MC-77 • Local governments do not have an unlimited capacity to provide services. Official Community Plans (OCP), Regional Growth Strategies (RGS) and strategic transportation plans are used to plan and manage future growth and servicing needs. • A mechanism is needed to ensure that FNCIDA projects are developed consistent with a neighbouring OCP, RGS or transportation plan. If FNCIDA projects are not planned and aligned with available capacity, the ability of municipalities and regional districts to provide the additional services required by FNCIDA projects will be strained. • Considering the capacity and legislative constraints for the provision of water and sewer services, future servicing of Indian Reserve lands will necessitate tripartite agreements involving the First Nation, municipality and the regional district. • In the case of Metro Vancouver, for example, the new RGS and Liquid Waste Management Plan may require the regional district to be a direct signatory to service agreements and may necessitate amendments to the respective Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District (GVS&DD) Act and Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD) Act. • Municipalities, regional districts and Translink impose Development Cost Charges (DCCs) as one-time fees to offset costs related to the provision of services to developments. DCCs are imposed on every new residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development. DCCs are required for FNCIDA projects to ensure that all neighbouring municipal and regional district costs are covered, and to prevent a “without fees” environment being created for developers.
Next Steps
• LMTAC Member Boards and Councils are encouraged to:
1. Discuss and endorse LMTAC’s draft paper, dated December 10th, 2010, titled Local Government Issues and Interests on the First Nation Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA) and the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (FNCLTA); and
2. Write to the Provincial Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation (MARR) and Federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) in support of LMTAC’s draft discussion paper on FNCIDA and FNCLTA.
3 MC-78 - This Page Left BLANK Intentionally -
MC-79 LMTAC - FEB 11, 2011
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FNCIDA
1. Where do residential developments fit in Commercial and Industrial legislation? Potential residential developments have always been at the forefront of FNCIDA; The original five First Nations that were behind FNCIDA were each looking at specific projects that they could develop; Squamish Nation was looking at a commercial market housing development; The restriction of FNCIDA to “commercial and industrial undertakings” is very loosely defined; The Governor in Council can enlarge the meaning or approve projects that are not necessarily commercial in nature.
2. What are the advantages of FNCIDA for applicant First Nation? The five original First Nations involved found that, with the specific projects they were pursuing, businesses were hesitant to make large investments on reserves due to the uncertainty of the regulatory gap; The regulatory gap stems from the fact that property and real estate regulations and legislation are provincial, but Indian Reserves are under federal authority; FNCIDA addresses this by allowing the provincial regulations to be mirrored on reserves;
3. Why have certain developments already been done on Reserve land, pre- FNCIDA, if the regulatory gap is such an issue? There is no clear answer to this question. It essentially comes down to the risk tolerance of the developer. Some were willing to develop on Reserves in spite of the existing regulatory gap. However, Squamish Nation found that there were “significant differences in market reaction to developments on reserve lands, and developments on neighbouring off-reserve lands resulting from the difference in the regulatory environment and the market’s perception of the of risk associated with that development” This quote seems to signify that the issue was not just being able to attract developers, but the regulatory gap was also lowering the market value of projects that did happen.
4. FNCLTA: Advantages of Torrens vs Deeds system: Prior to FNCLTA, leasehold interests on Reserve could only be registered under a deeds system (the Indian Lands Registry) • Deeds-based systems fail to provide certainty of interests; • There is no guarantee that registered documents are valid; • It is extremely difficult to obtain accurate and timely information from the Registry; Under FNCLTA, the provincial Torrens based system will be mirrored on reserve; • Provides more certainty, requires an assurance fund. • This is more attractive to potential developers/purchasers.
MC-80 LMTAC - FEB 11, 2011
5. Is the FNCIDA process easier and quicker? It is still viewed as expensive, time-consuming, and resource intensive; • Having to start from the beginning on a project-by-project basis makes it even more time-consuming; • In 2007, INAC said that due to resource requirements, they only expect to take on two projects a year, which could each take two years to complete; It is not clear if this is still the case, but when LMTAC met with INAC, they did state that, because of the time and costs involved, FNCIDA would likely only be pursued by large-scale projects; However, it is ultimately up to the First Nation to decide which projects are worth pursuing; If they feel the advantages of FNCIDA and FNCLTA for a small-scale project outweigh the costs of the process, then there is nothing stopping them from pursuing the legislation.
MC-81