GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ABORIGINAL …€¦ · Report submitted to UBCM on August 12,...

September 23, 2014

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT

ABORIGINAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:00 p.m.

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

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

1.1 October 1, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for October 1, 2014 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

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

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 2015 Business Plan and Budget – Aboriginal Relations Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services / Corporate Solicitor That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget as presented in the report “2015 Business Plan and Budget – Aboriginal Relations,” dated September 22, 2014, and forward them to the Board Budget Seminar on October 16, 2014 for consideration.

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

ARC - 1

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

Aboriginal Relations Committee Agenda October 1, 2014

Agenda of 3

September 23, 2014

5.2 Communication of Aboriginal Relations and Treaty Negotiation Updates to Local Governments Designated Speaker: Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information and input the report, dated August 25, 2014, titled “Communication of Aboriginal Relations and Treaty Negotiation Updates to Local Governments.”

5.3 Manager’s Report

Designated Speaker: Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/ Corporate Solicitor That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report dated September 22, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report.”

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.6 New Relationship: Lands and Resources and Economic Development Initiatives

Second Quarter: 2014. 6.7 New Relationship: Social Initiatives. Second Quarter: 2014.

6.8 Matrix: New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008‐2014.

ARC - 2

Aboriginal Relations Committee Agenda October 1, 2014

Agenda of 3

September 23, 2014

6.9 Brochure: “Critical Issues for Local Governments and First Nations” Conference.

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

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

7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below. That the Aboriginal Relations Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for October 1, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(i) and Section 90 (2)(b) as follows: “90 A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (1) (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor‐client privilege, including

communications necessary for that purpose; and (2) (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the municipality 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.”

9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of October 1, 2014.

Membership: Daykin, Ernie (C) – Maple Ridge Drew, Ralph (VC) – Belcarra Asmundson, Brent – Coquitlam Booth, Mary‐Ann – West Vancouver Ferguson, Steve – Langley Township Jackson, Lois – Delta Johnston, Dan ‐ Burnaby

Nixon, Alan – North Vancouver DistrictReimer, Andrea – Vancouver Schaffer, Ted – Langley City Steele, Barbara – Surrey Walters, Deb – Pitt Meadows Williams, Bryce – Tsawwassen

Non‐Voting Members: Boucher, Ray – Fraser Valley Regional District Kirkham, Rob – Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District Lewis, Lorne – Sunshine Coast Regional District

ARC - 3

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Aboriginal Relations Committee held on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 Page 1 of 7

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ABORIGINAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Aboriginal Relations Committee held at 1:01 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Director Ernie Daykin, Maple Ridge Vice Chair, Director Ralph Drew, Belcarra Councillor Brent Asmundson, Coquitlam Councillor Mary‐Ann Booth, West Vancouver Director Steve Ferguson, Langley Township Director Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Dan Johnston, Burnaby (arrived at 1:19 p.m.) Councillor Alan Nixon, North Vancouver District Mayor Ted Schaffer, Langley City Director Barbara Steele, Surrey (arrived at 1:17 p.m.) Director Deb Walters, Pitt Meadows Director Bryce Williams, Tsawwassen MEMBERS ABSENT: Director Andrea Reimer, Vancouver OTHERS PRESENT: Director Rob Kirkham, Squamish‐Lillooet Regional District* Director Lorne Lewis, Sunshine Coast Regional District* STAFF PRESENT: Ralph Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Counsel Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Janis Knaupp, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services,

Legal and Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 30, 2014 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 30, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED

* Non‐voting members from Squamish‐Lillooet, Sunshine Coast and Fraser Valley Regional Districts do not constitute quorum. Note: Fraser Valley Regional District member not appointed.

ARC - 4


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 February 5, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 5, 2014 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Provincial Legislation Relating to Undiscovered or Unregistered Archaeological Sites Report dated April 15, 2014 from Marino Piombini, Supervisor, and Agnes Rosicki, Senior Policy Analyst, Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services, responding to the Aboriginal Relations Committee’s request for a report regarding provincial legislation relating to undiscovered or unregistered archaeological sites and its impacts on property owners and property rights in British Columbia. Members were provided a presentation about BC provincial legislation relating to undiscovered or unregistered archaeological sites highlighting background of the legislation, ministerial responsibilities, implications for private property owners and local governments, financial implications, policy consideration, potential options for mitigating impacts, and next steps. Comments were offered about:

Mitigation measures needed to address legislation discouraging people from reporting findings due to financial implications

The need to provide clarity around penalties and enforcement

Meeting with senior government and Union of British Columbia Municipalities to discuss concerns

1:17 p.m. Director Steele arrived at the meeting. 1:19 p.m. Councillor Johnston arrived at the meeting.

Request of Staff Staff was requested to correct the form of the recommendation in the April 15, 2014 report titled “Provincial Legislation Relating to Undiscovered or Unregistered Archaeological Sites” prior to forwarding to the Board.

ARC - 5


Presentation material titled “Provincial Legislation Relating to Undiscovered or Unregistered Archaeological Sites” is retained with the April 30, 2014 Aboriginal Relations Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) receive the report, dated April 15, 2014, and the attachment titled

“Provincial Legislation Relating to Undiscovered or Unregistered Archaeological Sites”, for information; and

b) forward a letter conveying the report to the Province for response and forward a copy to the Union of BC Municipalities for information.

CARRIED Concerns were expressed about:

A lack of provincial resources for mapping of First Nations archeological sites

Local government obligation and implied liability for archeological assessment related to issuance of development and building permits

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board request a meeting with Ministers responsible for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to discuss: mitigation measures needed in the legislation to address the costs and difficulties incurred by owners and developers when complying with the Provincial legislation relating to undiscovered or unregistered archaeological sites; the potential liability to local government arising from issuing building and development permits to property owners; and concerns around the lack of provincial resources to address the concerns set out in the April 15, 2014 report.

CARRIED

5.2 2014 Community‐to‐Community Forum Proposal Report dated April 7, 2014 from Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services, providing the Aboriginal Relations Committee with a proposal on the Community‐to‐Community (C2C) Forum for review and input. Comments were offered about exploring opportunities to honour First Nations practices and for relationship‐building. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive the April 7, 2014 report titled “2014 Community‐to‐Community Forum Proposal” for information and endorse the Community‐to‐Community Forum Proposal as presented in the report.

CARRIED

ARC - 6


5.3 New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008‐2013 Report dated April 15, 2014 from Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services, providing the Aboriginal Relations Committee with an information summary of New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia signed by the provincial and federal governments with BC First Nations between 2008 and 2013. Comments were expressed about local governments not being aware of new relationship agreements and the need for a reporting mechanism to record new agreement achievements and successes. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board: a) receive for information the report, dated April 15, 2014, titled “New

Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008‐2013”; and b) forward a letter to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

requesting that Metro Vancouver be consulted on New Relationship agreements within the region between the BC Government and First Nations prior to those agreements being finalized.

CARRIED Request of Staff Staff was requested to correct the form of the recommendation in the April 15, 2014 report titled “New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008‐2013” prior to forwarding to the Board.

5.4 Manager’s Report Report dated April 3, 2014 from Ralph G. Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services/Corporate Counsel, updating the Aboriginal Relations Committee on the Aboriginal Relations Committee 2014 Work Plan, Bill S‐8 ‐ the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, Katzie First Nation election results, Fraser Valley Regional District not assigning a representative to the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee, signing of the Tla’amin final agreement, and three First Nations signing a Protocol Agreement and acquiring land. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report dated April 3, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report.”

CARRIED

ARC - 7


6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Aboriginal Relations Committee and Profile of First Nations Correspondence dated March 3, 2014, from Ernie Daykin, Chair, Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee to the 11 area First Nations regarding Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Aboriginal Relations Committee and Profile of First Nations.

6.2 Appointment of Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Representative to the UBCM First

Nations Relations Committee Correspondence dated March 4, 2014, from Paulette Vetleson, Director, Board and Information Services/Corporate Officer, to Angela Turner, Policy Analyst and Convention Coordinator, Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) regarding appointment of Metro Vancouver’s 2014 representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee.

6.3 Appointment of an Observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations

Committee for 2014 Correspondence dated March 4, 2014, from Paulette Vetleson, Director, Board and Information Services/Corporate Officer, to Barclay Pitkethly, Director of Regional Programs, Fraser Valley Regional District, regarding appointment of an observer to the Fraser Valley Regional District’s 2014 Aboriginal Relations Committee.

6.4 Appointment of the 2014 Local Government Treaty Table Representatives to

the Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh Negotiations Correspondence dated March 7, 2014, from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, to Chief Susan Miller, Katzie First Nation regarding appointment of the 2014 local government treaty table representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh negotiations.

6.5 Appointment of the 2014 Local Government Treaty Table Representatives to

the Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh Negotiations Correspondence dated March 7, 2014, from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board, to Chief Maureen Thomas, Tsleil‐Waututh Nation regarding appointment of the 2014 local government treaty table representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh negotiations.

6.6 Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation Policy

Correspondence dated March 5, 2014, from Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to Lois E. Jackson, Mayor of the Corporation of Delta regarding Additions to Reserve/Reserve creation policy.

ARC - 8


6.7 Final Report: Operational Funding for TACs, 2012/13 and 2013/14 Correspondence dated March 24, 2014, from Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Metro Vancouver, to Mr. Peter Ronald, Policy and Program Officer, Union of BC Municipalities regarding operational funding for technical advisory committees for the years 2012‐2013 and 2013‐2014.

6.8 Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation Policy

Correspondence dated March 26, 2014, from Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, to His Worship Doug Findlater, Mayor of the District of West Kelowna regarding Additions to Reserve/Reserve creation policy.

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the following Information Items: 6.1 Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Aboriginal Relations Committee and Profile of First

Nations 6.2 Appointment of Metro Vancouver’s 2014 Representative to the UBCM First

Nations Relations Committee 6.3 Appointment of an Observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations

Committee for 2014 6.4 Appointment of the 2014 Local Government Treaty Table Representatives to the

Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh Negotiations 6.5 Appointment of the 2014 Local Government Treaty Table Representatives to the

Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh Negotiations 6.6 Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation Policy 6.7 Final Report: Operational Funding for TACs, 2012/13 and 2013/14 6.8 Additions to Reserve/Reserve Creation Policy

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

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee further amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 30, 2014 by adding under Section 8. Resolution to Close Meeting, Section 90 (1) (m) of the Community Charter (a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting).

CARRIED It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee close its regular meeting scheduled for April 30, 2014 pursuant to the Community Charter provisions, Section 90 (1)(i), (m) and Section 90 (2)(b) as follows:

ARC - 9


“90 (1) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor‐client privilege,

including communications necessary for that purpose; and (m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may

be excluded from the meeting. 90 (2) A part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being

considered relates to or is one or more of the following: (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence

relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.”

CARRIED 9. ADJOURNMENT/TERMINATION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Aboriginal Relations Committee adjourn its regular meeting of April 30, 2014.

CARRIED (Time: 2:06 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Janis Knaupp, Ernie Daykin, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 9348207 FINAL

ARC - 10

5.1

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

Corporate Solicitor Date: September 22, 2014 Meeting Date: October 1, 2014 Subject: 2015 Business Plan and Budget – Aboriginal Relations

RECOMMENDATION That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget as presented in the report “2015 Business Plan and Budget ‐ Aboriginal Relations” dated September 22, 2014 and forward them to the Board Budget Seminar on October 16, 2014 for consideration.

PURPOSE To present the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget for consideration by the Aboriginal Relations Committee. BACKGROUND All 22 members of the Greater Vancouver Regional District participate in the Aboriginal Relations function that provides support to: corporate‐wide initiatives, local government interests in treaty negotiations, and responds to pan‐municipal First Nations’ issues. Aboriginal Relations is guided by the Board Strategic Plan, with its primary focus on the following goal: advance working relationships with First Nations. 2015 BUSINESS PLAN AND BUDGET As in 2014, the planning and budget process for each business area within Metro Vancouver’s legislative authority and responsibilities has included the development of Business Plans to guide the work plans for 2015. Each Business Plan includes a description of the service provided, the annual budget and staffing levels, as well as key actions for the upcoming year. In addition, performance indicators are included in the Business Plans. High level performance indicators have been developed across the organization to evaluate trends, determine key actions for the coming year, and assist in long‐term planning. For each performance indicator, context is provided either in the form of comparable industry benchmarks or internal historical trends, current performance and 2015 performance objectives. An organizational chart is attached that shows the department structure for the Aboriginal Relations (Attachment 1). The Aboriginal Relations Business Plan (Attachment 2) and Budget Detail (Attachment 3) are provided for the Committee’s consideration.

ARC - 11

The 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget have been prepared to respond to: the strategic direction provided by the Board; active treaty table discussions involving local government interests; and regional district initiatives that involve communication and engagement with Aboriginal communities. Operating Budget Highlights The Aboriginal Relations operating budget is proposed to increase by $88,953 (32%) in 2015 for a total operating budget of $366,855. This increase is primarily due to the corporate reallocation of one administrative position and a rise in labour costs. The 2015 operating budget includes the following key actions:

Continuing to develop and implement a corporate communications process for engaging with First Nations on Metro Vancouver projects and initiatives.

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

Completing an annual review/update of Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations.

Hosting an annual event involving staff of First Nations and local government (e.g. a workshop to discuss servicing agreements or other priority topic)

Highlights of a consulting project anticipated to be undertaken in 2015 to respond to work plan requirements within the operating budget includes the following:

Hosting an annual event involving local governments and First Nations’ elected leaders (e.g. a Community to Community Forum): $18,200

There are no proposed staffing changes for this program. One additional full‐time regular (FTR) administrative position (Program Assistant 1) was added to this program for 2015. This is not a new position, but one that has been corporately reallocated from the Administration Division within Legal and Legislative Services. As a result, the total staffing for Aboriginal Relations for 2015 is 3.0 FTR. Business Plan Performance Indicators Within the Aboriginal Relations Business Plan, four performance indicators have been developed and are being tracked. These include:

Number of local government interests represented at treaty table meetings

Number of special Aboriginal Relations events hosted by Metro Vancouver

Number of bilateral meetings between Metro Vancouver and the nine area First Nations with lands

Responding to external requests for information or advice related to First Nations and/or Aboriginal Relations

The trend in these performance measures suggest that activities will continue at the same level or increase slightly. The 2015 Budget has been prepared to respond to the growing demands on the service and to track Metro Vancouver’s involvement in Aboriginal Relations.

ARC - 12

kthandi

Typewritten Text

BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS The proposed 2015 Business Plan and Budget for Aboriginal Relations is presented to the Aboriginal Relations Committee for consideration and endorsement before being forwarded to the Board for consideration. The following lists the next steps of the budget process:

• The 2015 Business Plan and Budget for Aboriginal Relations will be presented at the Board Budget Seminar on October 16, 2014.

• The Board will consider adoption of the Budget on October 24, 2014. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the Aboriginal Relations Committee endorse the 2015 Aboriginal Relations Business Plan

and Budget as presented in the report “2015 Business Plan and Budget – Aboriginal Relations” dated September 22, 2014 and forward to the Board Budget Seminar on October 16, 2014 for consideration.

2. That the Aboriginal Relations Committee make recommendations and endorse the 2015

Aboriginal Relations Business Plan and Budget as amended and forward to the Board Budget Seminar on October 16, 2014 for consideration.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2015 Business Plan and Budget for Aboriginal Relations as presented in Alternative One comprises part of the overall GVRD tax requisition. The 2015 Aboriginal Relations budget, if approved by the GVRD Board, the operating expenditures for Aboriginal Relations will rise by 32%, representing an increase of $88,953 which is offset by an equivalent amount decreasing from the Administration Budget for Legal & Legislative Services. The 2015 Aboriginal Relations Budget of $366,855 supports the operations of all Metro Vancouver Districts and Housing Corporation and is allocated to, and supported by, the revenue sources of each. Under Alternative Two, the Committee may wish to consider recommending amendments to the operating budget to reflect Board strategic priorities. The financial implications of Alternative Two would depend on the nature and scope of recommendations made by the Committee. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION As part of the annual budget process for 2015, Business Plans have been prepared to accompany service area Budgets in order to provide Committee and Board members with a high level overview on the role of the service, the total budget, overall staff complement, performance indicators and key actions for the coming year. Within the overall Aboriginal Relations function, operating expenditures as outlined in the 2015 Business Plan are projected to increase by $88,953 (32%) over 2014. This increase is due to a corporate reallocation of one administrative position and is offset by an equivalent amount decreasing from the Administration Budget for Legal & Legislative Services. The budget for 2015 has been prepared to respond to direction provided in the Board Strategic Plan, ongoing activity at treaty tables in the region, and increasing communication and engagement activities with

ARC - 13

Aboriginal communities. Staff recommend endorsing the 2015 Business Plan and Budget as presented under Alternative One. Attachments:

1. Organizational Chart for Legal and Legislative Services 2. Aboriginal Relations 2015 Business Plan 3. 2015 Aboriginal Relations Budget Detail

10122313

ARC - 14

2014

GENERAL MANAGER

10142271

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION & ENFORCEMENT

BOARD & INFORMATION

SERVICES

Permits &Licenses

Compliance Promotion

Board & Legislative Services

Legal & Legislative ServicesTOTAL FTRs = 63.7

ABORIGINAL RELATIONS

Aboriginal Relations

Enforcement

FTRs = 3.0FTRs = 14.7 FTR Allocation:Air Quality = 15.0

Liquid Waste = 13.0Solid Waste = 6.0R&E Admin = 3.0

TOTAL FTRs = 37.0

LEGAL SERVICES

Legal Counsel

FTRs = 7.0

Information Management

Department Support

FTRs = 2.0

ATTACHMENT 1

ARC - 15

ATTACHMENT 2

LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Aboriginal Relations

Description of services Aboriginal Relations provides information, advice and support to Metro Vancouver on First Nations’ interests and issues and how such First Nations’ interests and issues may affect corporate programs, processes and projects. Aboriginal Relations also responds to pan‐municipal First Nation issues and represents and supports Metro Vancouver local government interests at treaty negotiation tables and related activities. The annual budget for this business area is $366,855. Strategic directions supported

Advance working relationships with First Nations. Performance indicators

Indicator Historical and/or industry benchmark

Current Performance

2015 Performance Objective

Number of local government interests represented at treaty table meetings

25

2014: 20

30

Number of special Aboriginal Relations events hosted by Metro Vancouver (e.g. Community to Community Forums)

0

2014: 1

2

Number of bilateral meetings between Metro Vancouver and the nine area First Nations with lands

6

2014: 4

8

External requests for information or advice related to First Nations and/or Aboriginal Relations

40

2014: 20

40

2015 key actions

Continue to develop and implement a corporate communications process for engaging with First Nations on Metro Vancouver projects and initiatives.

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

Complete an annual review/update of Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations.

Host an annual event involving local governments and First Nations’ elected leaders (e.g. a Community to Community Forum).

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

9742960

ARC - 16

REVENUES

826

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

2015 BUDGET

2014 BUDGET

2015 BUDGET

Allocated to Functional Departments $

$

3,267. 301 _$:;_..,_,;;;:,2:..:;,, 9~82"'-''-"-44..:...;0;,_

TOTAL REVENUES 3,267,301 =$====2,=9=82='=44==0==

EXPENDITURES

Operating Programs: Aboriginal Relations $ 282,052 $ 366,855 In House Legal 1,425,056 1,161,294 Information Management 973,194 1,061,329 Administration and Department Support 586,999 392,962

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3,267!301 $ 2,982!440

2015 BB OCT-Manual Functional Summaries V2a.xlsx

o;o

CHANGE

(8.7%)

(8.7%)

(8.7%)

ATTACHMENT 3

ARC - 17

5.2

To: Aboriginal Relations Committee From: Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Legal and Legislative Services Date: August 25, 2014 Meeting Date: October 1, 2014 Subject: Communication of Aboriginal Relations and Treaty Negotiation Updates to Local

Governments

RECOMMENDATION That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information and input the report, dated August 25, 2014, titled “Communication of Aboriginal Relations and Treaty Negotiation Updates to Local Governments.”

PURPOSE To provide information on activities for communicating Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiation updates to local governments. BACKGROUND At its meeting in July 2013, some Aboriginal Relations Committee members identified the need to receive Aboriginal Relations and treaty negotiations updates from their municipal staff or through their respective Councils. The following priority was subsequently included to the Aboriginal Relations Committee’s 2014 Work Plan:

Provide Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiation updates to local governments DISCUSSION Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiation updates are currently provided to local governments in a number of different ways as outlined in the next two sections of this report. Aboriginal Relations Aboriginal relations updates, such as notification of meetings or special events (e.g. Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings and Community‐to‐Community Forum), reports and publications, as well as presentations on specific issues, are communicated to, or shared with, local governments via:

E‐mail notifications

Committee agendas

Metro Vancouver’s web site

Public meetings of the Aboriginal Relations Committee, including invited presentations

Meetings of the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations

ARC - 18

Treaty Negotiations Given the confidential nature of treaty negotiations, updates are provided to local governments in the following ways:

Closed meetings of the Aboriginal Relations Committee and Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations, including updates from treaty table representatives and or Metro Vancouver staff, and invited presentations provided by the provincial treaty negotiators

Invited presentations from First Nations (e.g. Katzie treaty 101 in June 2012 to the Aboriginal Relations Committee)

Analyses of treaty negotiation chapters in relation to the interests of, or impacts to, local governments presented to both the Aboriginal Relations Committee and the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations

Metro Vancouver staff and provincial treaty negotiators invited to attend closed sessions of Council meetings or meetings with staff when a particular local government is impacted by a set of treaty negotiations

Other means for exchanging information among Metro Vancouver and local government staff (e.g. e‐mail, telephone or in‐person discussions)

Improving or Increasing Communications There are a number of possible ways for improving or increasing communications on matters related to Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiations that Metro Vancouver and local governments can undertake. Metro Vancouver staff will:

Notify members of the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations of the release of Aboriginal Relations Committee open agendas for upcoming meetings so that municipal staff can brief locally elected officials on particular matters;

Upon request, provide briefings or presentations to local government staff and/or municipal councils on treaty‐related matters, by making arrangement for provincial negotiators to be present, or to present on other specific issues;

Provide updates to local government representatives at Metro Vancouver Board meetings, Regional Administrative Advisory Committee (RAAC) meetings and/or to other committees as necessary;

Seek additional opportunities to provide updates to local governments. Local government staff can:

Contact Metro Vancouver staff on an ongoing basis to receive updated information;

Include Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiation updates as regular items on local council’s open and closed agendas as appropriate, with the designated elected official and/or staff providing updates;

As members of the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations, act as advisers for their respective local government and provide regular updates to their superiors, colleagues and elected officials;

Attend meetings of the Aboriginal Relations Committee when issues of specific interest are discussed or presented;

Indicate to Metro Vancouver of the need and opportunity to receive Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiation updates.

ARC - 19

At its meeting on June 18, 2014, MTAC considered a draft of this report and provided some additional comments and suggestions, which have been incorporated in this report. Overall, MTAC members felt that the updates provided by Metro Vancouver staff are adequate for their purposes. ALTERNATIVES As this is an information report, no alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report. However, if one or more of the possible means for improving or increasing communications presented above are enacted, then associated costs may result, such as additional staff time and materials as well as mileage to attend Council meetings. OTHER IMPLICATIONS In accordance with the direction of the provincial negotiators in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Province of British Columbia and the Union of BC Municipalities on Local Government Participation in the New Relationship with First Nations, treaty negotiation updates can only be shared on an in‐camera basis given the confidential nature of those negotiations. Any breach of conduct could result in possible implications for the province, the First Nation, the local government, including relations between these governments, as well as respective communities or any third parties (e.g. property owners). SUMMARY / CONCLUSION At its meeting in 2013, the Aboriginal Relations Committee identified the need to receive Aboriginal relations and treaty negotiation updates from their respective municipal staff and/or Councils. This information report provides information on the current ways in which the updates are provided to local governments and identifies possible additional opportunities. The Committee may wish to provide its input to this report and/or further direction to staff. 10118368

ARC - 20

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

Solicitor Date: September 22, 2014 Meeting date: October 1, 2014

Subject: Manager’s Report

RECOMMENDATION That the Aboriginal Relations Committee receive for information the report dated September 22, 2014, titled “Manager’s Report.”

Aboriginal Relations Committee 2014 Work Plan Attachment 1 of this report sets out the status of the Committee’s Work Plan for 2014. This does not include all items brought before the Committee, but rather priorities previously determined by the Board and Committee. Items identified as Pending include:

A technical workshop involving local government staff from the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations and staff from Katzie First Nation to discuss post‐treaty servicing‐related issues. This workshop, to be facilitated by a consultant, is scheduled to take place on December 10, 2014. A copy of the Katzie – Metro Vancouver Community to Community Forum Final Report, submitted to UBCM for receiving the remaining portion of the grant funding for this event is attached as Information Item 6.4 of the Agenda package. UBCM has approved the Final Report (Information Item 6.5).

The proposed Communications and Engagement Process with First Nations. A lot of work has been undertaken on this project involving Aboriginal Relations and Public Involvement for the Utilities departments. Once that work is completed (likely in early 2015), a corporate‐wide approach will be developed and implemented. The final product will be shared with the Committee when it is completed.

Backgrounder on the William Decision Attachment 2 of this report includes a Backgrounder on the June 26, 2014 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 for the Committee’s information.

ARC - 21

New Representative from the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee to Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee Information Item 6.2 of the Agenda package includes correspondence from the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) confirming Director Ray Boucher, Electoral Area F, as the 2014 FVRD appointment to Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee. First Nations Financial Transparency Act (FNFTA) Media reports over recent months have focused attention on the First Nations Financial Transparency Act (FNFTA), which received Royal Assent in Parliament on March 27, 2013. The information has resulted in basic First Nations financial information being published on the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development website (http://www.aadnc‐aandc.gc.ca) as of July 2014. According to the legislation, First Nations have 120 days after the end of the financial year to publish the documents online. This legislation was part of the federal government’s commitment in the 2001 Speech from the Throne for the public disclosure of remuneration and expenses of chiefs and councilors and First Nations’ audited consolidated financial statements. Conferences:

International Municipal Lawyers Association – September 10‐14, 2014 in Baltimore, MD At this annual conference, staff presented on two topics: Additions to Reserve and the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia 2014 SCC 44 (also known as the William Decision).

Environmental Managers Association Session on First Nations Engagement in BC – September 18, 2014 in Vancouver, BC Aboriginal Relations staff attended this half‐day session at SFU Harbour Centre which featured a panel of speakers with special expertise in issues of Aboriginal governance, consultation and engagement, including practical skills and tools than can be applied during engagement and consultation efforts. The session also covered legal issues involved in addressing and accommodating Aboriginal stakeholders, with special emphasis on the impact of the William (or Tsilhqot’in) Decision.

Critical Issues for Local Governments and First Nations – October 3, 2014 in Vancouver, BC The Committee Vice‐Chair, Director Ralph Drew, and staff have been invited by the Affinity Institute, an organization providing interdisciplinary legal education and professional development, to present on two topics: Statutory Consultation and Additions to Reserve. This one‐day session is being held at SFU Harbour Centre. A conference brochure is included in this Agenda as Information Item 6.9.

Attachments: 1. Aboriginal Relations Committee 2014 Work Plan 2. Backgrounder on the William Decision 3. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia. Supreme Court of Canada 2014 SCC 44

10118493

ARC - 22

ATTACHMENT 1

Aboriginal Relations Committee 2014 Work Plan Report Date: August 25, 2014 Priorities

1st Quarter Status

Appoint local government treaty table representatives to the Katzie and Tsleil‐Waututh treaty tables

Complete

Appoint a representative to the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee Complete

Appoint an observer to the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee Complete

Invite First Nations to attend or present at Aboriginal Relations Committee meetings in 2014

Complete

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

Complete

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

Complete

Provide quarterly progress reports in treaty negotiations Complete

Finalize Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations Complete

2nd Quarter Status

Review Provincial Legislation relating to undiscovered or unregistered archaeological sites

Complete

Host an event involving local governments and First Nations’ elected leaders (e.g. a Community‐to‐Community Forum)

Complete


Complete


Complete


3rd Quarter Status

Provide Aboriginal Relations and treaty negotiation updates to local governments Complete


Complete


Complete

Provide quarterly progress reports in treaty negotiations

Complete

ARC - 23

4th Quarter Status

Adopt and implement a corporate‐wide First Nations’ communications and engagement process

In Process

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

In Process

Review the 2015 Aboriginal Relations program budget Complete


Complete


Complete


Notes:

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

ARC - 24

ATTACHMENT 2

BACKGROUNDER

Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 This Backgrounder examines the June 26, 2014 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 (also known as the William Decision) and its possible impacts on Metro Vancouver and local governments. A copy of the SCC decision is attached also attached; specific sections of the decision are referenced in this Backgrounder. William Decision In 1983, the BC government granted Carrier Lumber Ltd. a commercial logging license on land that the Tsilhqot’in (pronounced Sil‐Kotin) Nation considered part of its traditional territory. In 1989, Chief Roger William, on behalf of the Tsilhqot’in Nation, filed action in the BC Supreme Court seeking a declaration of Aboriginal title over 438,000 hectares – approximately one and a half times the size of the Metro Vancouver region – in BC’s Cariboo‐Chilcotin region for the 400 people who lived there when the British Crown asserted its sovereignty in 1846. The claim area represents 5%‐10% of the traditional territory claimed by the Tsilhqot’in Nation. Chief William also sought a declaration of Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal rights to hunt and trap in the claim area and to trade animal skins and pelts. The Province had argued the population was too small to be in control of such a wide space. The trial took place before the BC Supreme Court over the period 2002 to 2007 and was heard over 339 trial days. Justice Vickers found that:

The Tsilhqot’in Nation had demonstrated required evidence of the existence of Aboriginal title in an area amounting to approximately 200,000 hectares but, due to a procedural defect, no declaration of title could be made.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation has an Aboriginal right to hunt and trap birds and animals and an Aboriginal right to trade in skin pelts as a means for securing a moderate livelihood.

Provincial laws cannot apply to Aboriginal title.

In 2012, Chief William, Canada and BC appealed Justice Vickers’ decision. The BC Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals. The Court of Appeal expressed a different opinion on Aboriginal title than Justice Vickers in that Aboriginal title must be demonstrated with a degree of site‐specificity, establishing title to small areas such as rocks from which Aboriginals had fished, rather than on a territorial basis. The Court of Appeal agreed with Justice Vickers that the provincial Forest Act infringed on the Tsilhqot’in Nation’s Aboriginal rights. In 2013, Chief William appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Appeal was heard on November 7, 2013.

ARC - 25

On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision, which provides more certainty on the test for Aboriginal title and the application of provincial laws to Aboriginal title lands. For the Supreme Court of Canada, this is the first time in its history that it has declared the existence of Aboriginal title on specific lands (approximately 175,000 hectares) outside Indian Reserves. The detailed, complex 81‐page decision confirms that semi‐nomadic or nomadic Aboriginal Peoples may be able to establish Aboriginal title, and once this title is established, the Crown is required to justify any infringement. Prior to establishing title, the Crown’s duty to consult continues to govern Crown‐Aboriginal relations. What Did the Supreme Court Decide? With the William Decision, the SCC has confirmed that:

Aboriginal title can exist over relatively broad areas of land that were subject to occupation (i.e. regular and exclusive use of land and not necessarily limited to village sites) at the time sovereignty was asserted (1846).

Provincial laws apply on lands for which Aboriginal title is claimed or proven.

Federal and provincial governments continue to have a duty to consult and potentially accommodate in cases where Aboriginal title is asserted but not yet proven.

Governments can infringe proven Aboriginal title, provided they meet the established tests for justification (i.e. if actions pursued by the Crown have a “compelling and substantial objective”).

This SCC decision confirms that Aboriginal title confers ownership rights similar to fee simple (paragraph 73), including the right of enjoyment and occupancy of the land and the right to:

Decide how the land will be used

Possess the land

Reap the economic benefits of the land

Proactively use and manage the land The decision also confirms that Aboriginal title is not absolute and must be held collectively for the present and future generations. The land cannot be alienated except to the Crown, nor encumbered in any way that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it. With the exception of clarifying what is required to establish occupation (i.e. a First Nation needs to demonstrate “sufficient” pre‐sovereignty occupation; “continuous” occupation where present occupation is relied on; and “exclusive” historic occupation), the decision does not make significant changes to the law of Aboriginal title as it has come to exist over the past several decades. Provincial Jurisdiction Over Aboriginal Title Lands The one area where the William Decision represents a significant change in the law is that, for the first time, the SCC has clearly stated that “provincial laws of general application apply to lands held under Aboriginal title” (paragraph 101). This clarification ensures that lands under Aboriginal title are still generally governed by regulations such as environmental protection regimes. The SCC, however, qualifies the general application statement by emphasizing that provincial laws will not apply if they are “unreasonable, impose a hardship or deny the title holders their preferred means of exercising their rights” (paragraph 151). In short, the Crown may infringe Aboriginal title,

ARC - 26

but only if the infringement can be justified. Justification requires consultation with the Aboriginal titleholder. It means that the infringement must be minimal, consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary responsibilities to Aboriginal Peoples, and backed by “a compelling and substantial objective.” Although the province still has the power to regulate, it’s clear now that it will only be able to exercise that authority if it is willing to share the benefits of economic activity with the Aboriginal titleholders of the land on which it is proposed to take place. There is no requirement that First Nations consent to the proposed activity. First Nations may refuse, either because the benefit (i.e. compensation) is not enough, or because the cost (e.g. environmental terms) is too high. In such circumstances, the Crown may only proceed if it meets the high burden of the requirements of justification. Aboriginal Accommodation Aboriginal title includes the right to economic benefits from the land, and since Aboriginal title is established at the time of sovereignty, a key question remains unanswered about whether and what compensation will be owed by governments to Aboriginal groups in respect of any unjustified resource extraction that occurred between the date of sovereignty and the date a court may ultimately find Aboriginal title. This issue was not addressed by the SCC in this case. Where a project may infringe on Aboriginal title:

The Crown will likely need to dedicate greater resources to assist in determining the strength of Aboriginal claims to title when carrying out consultation;

There will likely be greater transparency and sharing of information among Aboriginal groups, the Crown, and project proponents in order to assess the potential impacts of project activities to Aboriginal title to ensure that the Crown’s obligations to Aboriginal Peoples are met;

The Crown and proponents will be motivated to reach agreements with potentially impacted Aboriginal groups (such as non‐treaty agreements and revenue‐sharing under New Relationship agreements between the Crown and First Nations, as well as impact benefit agreements in the case of private proponents) in order to ensure certainty around the land base for the development of resource projects.

Aboriginal Title Litigation It is expected that the implications of the William Decision will likely lead to many more First Nations bringing forward their court claims to declaration of Aboriginal title, using this case as precedent. Now that the SCC has established a clear test for Aboriginal title, this decision may encourage further litigation as First Nations choose the courts rather than the BC treaty process or other remedies. In fact, within the first month of this judgment having been rendered, several First Nation groups in BC had already filed their respective writs. Litigation, such as the William Decision, however, can cost many millions of dollars, and the Crown can still infringe Aboriginal title for “compelling” reasons, including economic development, mining and forestry. Ultimately, First Nations will have to determine whether the additional rights and benefits that they derive from pursuing title litigation will benefit their communities. It is certainly possible that many will decide it simply is not, provided that meaningful reconciliation initiatives (e.g. revenue‐sharing and other non‐treaty agreements that are intended to provide benefits to Aboriginal groups) continue.

ARC - 27

Possible Impacts of the William Decision on Metro Vancouver and Member Local Governments At this point, it remains unclear what degree or scope this SCC decision will have on regional district/local government operations. The SCC asserts that “the right to control the land conferred by Aboriginal title means that governments and others seeking to use the land must obtain the consent of the Aboriginal title holders” (paragraph 76). With this assertion, it is expected that some change will be enacted. For local governments, these four areas are likely to be impacted by the William Decision in the near term: local government/regional district lands; land use regulation; First Nations engagement; and treaty negotiations. Local Government/Regional District Lands The William Decision offered no comment on what implications a finding of Aboriginal title may have where privately‐held lands, including local government lands, are included in future claims. This leads to the potential for conflicting ownership entitlements if a case is presented before the courts. The key issue for local government ownership of land is that certainty regarding ownership may be in question if and when Aboriginal title is proven. Although the Crown has maintained in its treaty negotiations with First Nations that privately‐held lands in BC are not “on the table” for settlement purposes, unless it is on a “willing seller, willing buyer basis”, this position may not necessarily fully extend to lands owned by local governments. For example, in the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (2008), the Province transferred lands within Pacific Spirit Regional Park, owned by Metro Vancouver, to the Musqueam Indian Band as part of a Provincial settlement of litigation claims brought by the First Nation. While the province had initially transferred the lands to Metro Vancouver subject to a First Nation’s claim on the land, this example suggests that local government‐owned lands may be regarded by the Crown as much more “public” in nature than other privately‐held lands and, therefore, available for settlement of Aboriginal title or other types of claims. The recent William Decision and the Musqueam Reconciliation, Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (2008) raise some legitimate concerns for the security of land ownership entitlement of local governments and their taxpayers, especially with respect to undeveloped lands such as parks. Land Use Regulation A finding of Aboriginal title will likely result in the exclusion of title lands from regulatory jurisdiction similar to the manner in which the application of local government regulations to Indian Reserves is restricted, except for those regulations which meet the general application test applicable to the Crown (e.g. environmental regulations). Local government interests will likely best be advanced by continuing the process of engagement with First Nations in order to manage issues of common concern to neighbouring jurisdictions. First Nations Engagement The William Decision has created a higher standard of engagement with First Nations that have Aboriginal title. The effect is that the strength of claims in many cases will likely increase, thus increasing the depth of consultation required. This will affect the consultation obligations of the Crown and project proponents, including local governments (i.e. additional staff and resource

ARC - 28

requirements). It also means the Crown will likely need to dedicate greater resources to assist in determining the strength of Aboriginal claims to title when carrying out consultation (e.g. for large capital projects). It also necessitates the need to practice early engagement with Aboriginal groups. In this regard, as local governments do not have the legislative authority to accommodate Aboriginal rights and title claims, it may be prudent to establish, at the outset of any project, the scope and purpose of any consultation that local governments undertake. It can also be anticipated that the Crown’s standards for reviewing Metro Vancouver’s engagement efforts with First Nations will be raised, so that it can be satisfied that the Crown’s obligations have been fulfilled. The Crown may also suggest the need for more opportunities to accommodate Aboriginal interests when developing projects. Metro Vancouver and local government staff can, therefore, expect to liaise more with provincial ministries and Crown agencies, in seeking greater clarity from Crown staff over proposed projects and regulatory requirements (e.g. provincial permits). This case has also left a number of questions unanswered with respect to First Nations engagement, such as:

Has consent been obtained from the right person or group, including awareness of traditional political structures and legal systems when seeking authorizations from Aboriginal groups?

The issue of shared territories and overlapping claims to Aboriginal title over the same land(s).

The issue of internal disputes within Aboriginal groups with respect to land use planning and development, recognizing that Aboriginal title is held collectively for the benefit of present and future generations.

Did the decision create a new fiduciary obligation on title and the Crown?

What social, economic and legal ramifications will result from this decision in the future? Treaty Negotiations The William Decision will be viewed by First Nations as an alternative to other forms of resolution of land claims, allowing First Nations to have Aboriginal title recognized through the court system rather than having to negotiate for it with the Crown. For First Nations at or near an Agreement‐in‐Principle (AIP), the William Decision may increase a First Nation’s leverage and expectations between the AIP stage and Final Agreement in that the size of a land and cash offer will be expected to be larger as the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in this case emphasized First Nations’ ability to claim stronger title to larger areas (not just the village sites). While the Crown may remain strongly committed to completing treaties in BC, and First Nations can gain much more through treaty negotiations than through litigation (e.g. only treaty First Nations can remove themselves from the Indian Act, gain self‐government and taxation authorities, and more effectively pursue economic development opportunities), it is anticipated that the SCC decision will lead to a slower pace in treaty negotiations as the negotiating parties will be incorporating aspects of this case in their negotiating positions, including the revised definition of Aboriginal title. Further, the Crown needs to assess strength of claim analyses in order to ensure that future Treaty Settlement Lands are not placed in other First Nations’ title areas. Metro Vancouver and member local governments, as part of the provincial negotiating teams at active treaty tables, will likely incur additional costs (e.g. staff time and other resources) if the pace of treaty negotiations slows down.

ARC - 29

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 DATE: 20140626

DOCKET: 34986

BETWEEN: Roger William, on his own behalf, on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the

Tsilhqot’in Nation Appellant

and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, Regional

Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region and Attorney General of Canada Respondents

- and - Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Te’mexw Treaty Association,

Business Council of British Columbia, Council of Forest Industries, Coast Forest Products Association, Mining Association of British Columbia, Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations, Gitanyow

Hereditary Chiefs of Gwass Hlaam, Gamlaxyeltxw, Malii, Gwinuu, Haizimsque, Watakhayetsxw, Luuxhon and Wii’litswx, on their own behalf and on behalf of

all Gitanyow, Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, Council of the Haida Nation, Office of the Wet’suwet’en Chiefs, Indigenous Bar Association in Canada, First

Nations Summit, Tsawout First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, Snuneymuxw First Nation, Kwakiutl First Nation, Coalition of Union of British Columbia

Indian Chiefs, Okanagan Nation Alliance, Shuswap Nation Tribal Council and their member communities, Okanagan, Adams Lake, Neskonlith and Splatsin Indian Bands, Amnesty International, Canadian Friends Service Committee, Gitxaala Nation, Chilko Resorts and Community Association and Council of

Canadians Interveners

CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: (paras. 1 to 153)

McLachlin C.J. (LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ. concurring)

ATTACHMENT 3

ARC - 30

NOTE: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

ARC - 31

TSILHQOT’IN NATION v. BRITISH COLUMBIA

Roger William, on his own behalf, on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government and on behalf of all other members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region and Attorney General of Canada Respondents

and

Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of Manitoba, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta, Te’mexw Treaty Association, Business Council of British Columbia, Council of Forest Industries, Coast Forest Products Association, Mining Association of British Columbia, Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia, Assembly of First Nations, Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs of Gwass Hlaam, Gamlaxyeltxw, Malii, Gwinuu, Haizimsque, Watakhayetsxw, Luuxhon and Wii’litswx, on their own behalf and on behalf of all Gitanyow, Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, Council of the Haida Nation, Office of the Wet’suwet’en Chiefs, Indigenous Bar Association in Canada, First Nations Summit, Tsawout First Nation, Tsartlip First Nation, Snuneymuxw First Nation, Kwakiutl First Nation, Coalition of Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Okanagan Nation Alliance, Shuswap Nation Tribal Council and their member communities, Okanagan, Adams Lake, Neskonlith and Splatsin Indian Bands, Amnesty International, Canadian Friends Service Committee, Gitxaala Nation, Chilko Resorts and Community Association and Council of Canadians Interveners

Indexed as: Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia

ARC - 32

2014 SCC 44

File No.: 34986.

2013: November 7; 2014: June 26.

Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Aboriginal law — Aboriginal title — Land claims — Elements of test for

establishing Aboriginal title to land — Rights and limitations conferred by Aboriginal

title — Duties owed by Crown before and after Aboriginal title to land established —

Province issuing commercial logging licence in area regarded by semi-nomadic First

Nation as traditional territory — First Nation claiming Aboriginal title to land —

Whether test for Aboriginal title requiring proof of regular and exclusive occupation

or evidence of intensive and site-specific occupation — Whether trial judge erred in

finding Aboriginal title established — Whether Crown breached procedural duties to

consult and accommodate before issuing logging licences — Whether Crown

incursions on Aboriginal interest justified under s. 35 Constitution Act, 1982

framework — Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1995, c. 157 — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35.

Aboriginal law — Aboriginal title — Land claims — Provincial laws of

general application — Constitutional constraints on provincial regulation of

ARC - 33

Aboriginal title land — Division of powers — Doctrine of interjurisdictional

immunity — Infringement and justification framework under s. 35 Constitution Act,

1982 — Province issuing commercial logging licence in area regarded by semi-

nomadic First Nation as traditional territory — First Nation claiming Aboriginal title

to land — Whether provincial laws of general application apply to Aboriginal title

land — Whether Forest Act on its face applies to Aboriginal title lands — Whether

the application of the Forest Act ousted by operation of Constitution — Whether

doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity should be applied to lands held under

Aboriginal title — Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1995, c. 157 — Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35.

For centuries the Tsilhqot’in Nation, a semi-nomadic grouping of six

bands sharing common culture and history, have lived in a remote valley bounded by

rivers and mountains in central British Columbia. It is one of hundreds of indigenous

groups in B.C. with unresolved land claims. In 1983, B.C. granted a commercial

logging licence on land considered by the Tsilhqot’in to be part of their traditional

territory. The band objected and sought a declaration prohibiting commercial logging

on the land. Talks with the province reached an impasse and the original land claim

was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title to the land at issue on behalf of

all Tsilhqot’in people. The federal and provincial governments opposed the title

claim.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that occupation was

established for the purpose of proving title by showing regular and exclusive use of

ARC - 34

sites or territory within the claim area, as well as to a small area outside that area.

Applying a narrower test based on site-specific occupation requiring proof that the

Aboriginal group’s ancestors intensively used a definite tract of land with reasonably

defined boundaries at the time of European sovereignty, the British Columbia Court

of Appeal held that the Tsilhqot’in claim to title had not been established.

Held: The appeal should be allowed and a declaration of Aboriginal title

over the area requested should be granted. A declaration that British Columbia

breached its duty to consult owed to the Tsilhqot’in Nation should also be granted.

The trial judge was correct in finding that the Tsilhqot’in had established

Aboriginal title to the claim area at issue. The claimant group, here the Tsilhqot’in,

bears the onus of establishing Aboriginal title. The task is to identify how pre-

sovereignty rights and interests can properly find expression in modern common law

terms. Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive

use of land. To ground Aboriginal title “occupation” must be sufficient, continuous

(where present occupation is relied on) and exclusive. In determining what

constitutes sufficient occupation, which lies at the heart of this appeal, one looks to

the Aboriginal culture and practices, and compares them in a culturally sensitive way

with what was required at common law to establish title on the basis of occupation.

Occupation sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to specific sites of

settlement but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or

ARC - 35

otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control

at the time of assertion of European sovereignty.

In finding that Aboriginal title had been established in this case, the trial

judge identified the correct legal test and applied it appropriately to the evidence.

While the population was small, he found evidence that the parts of the land to which

he found title were regularly used by the Tsilhqot’in, which supports the conclusion

of sufficient occupation. The geographic proximity between sites for which evidence

of recent occupation was tendered and those for which direct evidence of historic

occupation existed also supports an inference of continuous occupation. And from

the evidence that prior to the assertion of sovereignty the Tsilhqot’in repelled other

people from their land and demanded permission from outsiders who wished to pass

over it, he concluded that the Tsilhqot’in treated the land as exclusively theirs. The

Province’s criticisms of the trial judge’s findings on the facts are primarily rooted in

the erroneous thesis that only specific, intensively occupied areas can support

Aboriginal title. Moreover, it was the trial judge’s task to sort out conflicting

evidence and make findings of fact. The presence of conflicting evidence does not

demonstrate palpable and overriding error. The Province has not established that the

conclusions of the trial judge are unsupported by the evidence or otherwise in error.

Nor has it established his conclusions were arbitrary or insufficiently precise. Absent

demonstrated error, his findings should not be disturbed.

ARC - 36

The nature of Aboriginal title is that it confers on the group that holds it

the exclusive right to decide how the land is used and the right to benefit from those

uses, subject to the restriction that the uses must be consistent with the group nature

of the interest and the enjoyment of the land by future generations. Prior to

establishment of title, the Crown is required to consult in good faith with any

Aboriginal groups asserting title to the land about proposed uses of the land and, if

appropriate, accommodate the interests of such claimant groups. The level of

consultation and accommodation required varies with the strength of the Aboriginal

group’s claim to the land and the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon

the interest claimed.

Where Aboriginal title has been established, the Crown must not only

comply with its procedural duties, but must also justify any incursions on Aboriginal

title lands by ensuring that the proposed government action is substantively consistent

with the requirements of s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This requires

demonstrating both a compelling and substantial governmental objective and that the

government action is consistent with the fiduciary duty owed by the Crown to the

Aboriginal group. This means the government must act in a way that respects the fact

that Aboriginal title is a group interest that inheres in present and future generations,

and the duty infuses an obligation of proportionality into the justification process: the

incursion must be necessary to achieve the government’s goal (rational connection);

the government must go no further than necessary to achieve it (minimal

impairment); and the benefits that may be expected to flow from that goal must not be

ARC - 37

outweighed by adverse effects on the Aboriginal interest (proportionality of impact).

Allegations of infringement or failure to adequately consult can be avoided by

obtaining the consent of the interested Aboriginal group. This s. 35 framework

permits a principled reconciliation of Aboriginal rights with the interests of all

Canadians.

The alleged breach in this case arises from the issuance by the Province

of licences affecting the land in 1983 and onwards, before title was declared. The

honour of the Crown required that the Province consult the Tsilhqot’in on uses of the

lands and accommodate their interests. The Province did neither and therefore

breached its duty owed to the Tsilhqot’in.

While unnecessary for the disposition of the appeal, the issue of whether

the Forest Act applies to Aboriginal title land is of pressing importance and is

therefore addressed. As a starting point, subject to the constitutional constraints of s.

35 Constitution Act, 1982 and the division of powers in the Constitution Act, 1867,

provincial laws of general application apply to land held under Aboriginal title. As a

matter of statutory construction, the Forest Act on its face applied to the land in

question at the time the licences were issued. The British Columbia legislature

clearly intended and proceeded on the basis that lands under claim remain “Crown

land” for the purposes of the Forest Act at least until Aboriginal title is recognized.

Now that title has been established, however, the timber on it no longer falls within

the definition of “Crown timber” and the Forest Act no longer applies. It remains

ARC - 38

open to the legislature to amend the Act to cover lands over which Aboriginal title

has been established, provided it observes applicable constitutional restraints.

This raises the question of whether provincial forestry legislation that on

its face purports to apply to Aboriginal title lands, such as the Forest Act, is ousted by

the s. 35 framework or by the limits on provincial power under the Constitution Act,

1867. Under s. 35, a right will be infringed by legislation if the limitation is

unreasonable, imposes undue hardship, or denies the holders of the right their

preferred means of exercising the right. General regulatory legislation, such as

legislation aimed at managing the forests in a way that deals with pest invasions or

prevents forest fires, will often pass this test and no infringement will result.

However, the issuance of timber licences on Aboriginal title land is a direct transfer

of Aboriginal property rights to a third party and will plainly be a meaningful

diminution in the Aboriginal group’s ownership right amounting to an infringement

that must be justified in cases where it is done without Aboriginal consent.

Finally, for purposes of determining the validity of provincial legislative

incursions on lands held under Aboriginal title, the framework under s. 35 displaces

the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. There is no role left for the application

of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity and the idea that Aboriginal rights are

at the core of the federal power over “Indians” under s. 91(24) of the Constitution

Act, 1867. The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity is directed to ensuring that

the two levels of government are able to operate without interference in their core

ARC - 39

areas of exclusive jurisdiction. This goal is not implicated in cases such as this.

Aboriginal rights are a limit on both federal and provincial jurisdiction. The problem

in cases such as this is not competing provincial and federal power, but rather tension

between the right of the Aboriginal title holders to use their land as they choose and

the province which seeks to regulate it, like all other land in the province.

Interjurisdictional immunity — premised on a notion that regulatory environments

can be divided into watertight jurisdictional compartments — is often at odds with

modern reality. Increasingly, as our society becomes more complex, effective

regulation requires cooperation between interlocking federal and provincial schemes.

Interjurisdictional immunity may thwart such productive cooperation.

In the result, provincial regulation of general application, including the

Forest Act, will apply to exercises of Aboriginal rights such as Aboriginal title land,

subject to the s. 35 infringement and justification framework. This carefully

calibrated test attempts to reconcile general legislation with Aboriginal rights in a

sensitive way as required by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and is fairer and more

practical from a policy perspective than the blanket inapplicability imposed by the

doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. The result is a balance that preserves the

Aboriginal right while permitting effective regulation of forests by the province. In

this case, however, the Province’s land use planning and forestry authorizations under

the Forest Act were inconsistent with its duties owed to the Tsilhqot’in people.

Cases Cited

ARC - 40

Applied: R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; Delgamuukw v. British

Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of

Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511; distinguished: R. v. Morris, 2006 SCC

59, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 915; referred to: Calder v. Attorney General of British

Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313; Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; R. v.

Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Western Australia v. Ward (2002), 213 C.L.R. 1; R.

v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507; R. v. Marshall, 2003 NSCA 105, 218 N.S.R.

(2d) 78; R. v. Marshall, 2005 SCC 43, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220; Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 650; Quebec (Attorney

General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC 39, [2010] 2 S.C.R.

536; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, 2007

SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; Marine Services International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013

SCC 44, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 53; Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services

Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 11.

Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91, 92, 109.

Constitution Act, 1982, Part I, Part II, s. 35.

Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 157, s. 1 “Crown land”, “Crown timber”, “private land”.

Royal Proclamation (1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1.

ARC - 41

Authors Cited

Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West, 2009, “vested”.

Hogg, Peter W. “The Constitutional Basis of Aboriginal Rights”, in Maria Morellato, ed., Aboriginal Law Since Delgamuukw. Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 2009, 3.

McNeil, Kent. “Aboriginal Title and the Supreme Court: What’s Happening?” (2006), 69 Sask. L. Rev. 281.

McNeil, Kent. Common Law Aboriginal Title. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Slattery, Brian. “Understanding Aboriginal Rights” (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727.

Sullivan, Ruth. Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th ed. Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis, 2008.

Ziff, Bruce. Principles of Property Law, 5th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2010.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal

(Levine, Tysoe and Groberman JJ.A.), 2012 BCCA 285, 33 B.C.L.R. (5th) 260, 324

B.C.A.C. 214, 551 W.A.C. 214, [2012] 3 C.N.L.R. 333, [2012] 10 W.W.R. 639, 26

R.P.R. (5th) 67, [2012] B.C.J. No. 1302 (QL), 2012 CarswellBC 1860, upholding the

order of Vickers J., 2007 BCSC 1700, [2008] 1 C.N.L.R. 112, 65 R.P.R. (4th) 1,

[2007] B.C.J. No. 2465 (QL), 2007 CarswellBC 2741. Appeal allowed.

David M. Rosenberg, Q.C., Jay Nelson, David M. Robbins and

Dominique Nouvet, for the appellant.

ARC - 42

Patrick G. Foy, Q.C., and Kenneth J. Tyler, for the respondents Her

Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and the Regional

Manager of the Cariboo Forest Region.

Mark R. Kindrachuk, Q.C., Brian McLaughlin and Jan Brongers, for the

respondent the Attorney General of Canada.

Alain Gingras and Hubert Noreau-Simpson, for the intervener the

Attorney General of Quebec.

Heather Leonoff, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of

Manitoba.

P. Mitch McAdam, Q.C., and Sonia Eggerman, for the intervener the

Attorney General for Saskatchewan.

Sandra Folkins, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.

Robert J. M. Janes and Karey Brooks, for the intervener the Te’mexw

Treaty Association.

Charles F. Willms and Kevin O’Callaghan, for the interveners the

Business Council of British Columbia, the Council of Forest Industries, the Coast

ARC - 43

Forest Products Association, the Mining Association of British Columbia and the

Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia.

Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C., Catherine J. Boies Parker and Patrick Macklem,

for the intervener the Assembly of First Nations.

Diane Soroka, for the interveners the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs of

Gwass Hlaam, Gamlaxyeltxw, Malii, Gwinuu, Haizimsque, Watakhayetsxw,

Luuxhon and Wii’litswx, on their own behalf and on behalf of all Gitanyow, and the

Office of the Wet’suwet’en Chiefs.

Robert B. Morales and Renée Racette, for the intervener the

Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group.

Written submissions only by Louise Mandell, Q.C., Stuart Rush, Q.C.,

Michael Jackson, Q.C., Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson, David Paterson and Angela

D’Elia, for the intervener the Council of the Haida Nation.

David C. Nahwegahbow and Guy Régimbald, for the intervener the

Indigenous Bar Association in Canada.

Maria Morellato, Q.C., Cheryl Sharvit and Stacey Edzerza-Fox, for the

intervener the First Nations Summit.

ARC - 44

Written submissions only by John W. Gailus and Christopher G. Devlin,

for the interveners the Tsawout First Nation, the Tsartlip First Nation, the

Snuneymuxw First Nation and the Kwakiutl First Nation.

Louise Mandell, Q.C., Michael Jackson, Q.C., Ardith Walkem and Nicole

Schabus, for the interveners the Coalition of Union of British Columbia Indian

Chiefs, the Okanagan Nation Alliance and the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council and

their member communities, Okanagan, Adams Lake, Neskonlith and Splatsin Indian

Bands.

Justin Safayeni and Paul Joffe, for the interveners Amnesty International

and the Canadian Friends Service Committee.

Tim A. Dickson, for the intervener the Gitxaala Nation.

Gregory J. McDade, Q.C., and F. Matthew Kirchner, for the interveners

the Chilko Resorts and Community Association and the Council of Canadians.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. The Historic Backdrop

III. The Jurisprudential Backdrop

IV. Pleadings in Aboriginal Land Claims Cases

V. Is Aboriginal Title Established?

A. The Test for Aboriginal Title

ARC - 45

1. Sufficiency of Occupation

2. Continuity of Occupation

3. Exclusivity of Occupation

4. Summary

B. Was Aboriginal Title Established in this Case?

VI. What Rights Does Aboriginal Title Confer?

A. The Legal Characterization of Aboriginal Title

B. The Incidents of Aboriginal Title

C. Justification of Infringement

D. Remedies and Transition

E. What Duties Were Owed by the Crown at the Time of the Government Action?

VII. Breach of the Duty to Consult VIII. Provincial Laws and Aboriginal Title

A. Do Provincial Laws of General Application Apply to Land Held Under Aboriginal Title?

B. Does the Forest Act on its Face Apply to Aboriginal Title Land?

C. Is the Forest Act Ousted by the Constitution?

1. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

2. The Division of Powers

IX. Conclusion

The judgment of the Court was delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE —

I. Introduction

ARC - 46

[1] What is the test for Aboriginal title to land? If title is established, what

rights does it confer? Does the British Columbia Forest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 157,

apply to land covered by Aboriginal title? What are the constitutional constraints on

provincial regulation of land under Aboriginal title? Finally, how are broader public

interests to be reconciled with the rights conferred by Aboriginal title? These are

among the important questions raised by this appeal.

[2] These reasons conclude:

Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive

use of land.

In this case, Aboriginal title is established over the area designated by the trial

judge.

Aboriginal title confers the right to use and control the land and to reap the

benefits flowing from it.

Where title is asserted, but has not yet been established, s. 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982 requires the Crown to consult with the group asserting

title and, if appropriate, accommodate its interests.

Once Aboriginal title is established, s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

permits incursions on it only with the consent of the Aboriginal group or if

ARC - 47

they are justified by a compelling and substantial public purpose and are not

inconsistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group; for

purposes of determining the validity of provincial legislative incursions on

lands held under Aboriginal title, this framework displaces the doctrine of

interjurisdictional immunity.

In this case, the Province’s land use planning and forestry authorizations were

inconsistent with its duties owed to the Tsilhqot’in people.

II. The Historic Backdrop

[3] For centuries, people of the Tsilhqot’in Nation — a grouping of six bands

sharing common culture and history — have lived in a remote valley bounded by

rivers and mountains in central British Columbia. They lived in villages, managed

lands for the foraging of roots and herbs, hunted and trapped. They repelled invaders

and set terms for the European traders who came onto their land. From the

Tsilhqot’in perspective, the land has always been theirs.

[4] Throughout most of Canada, the Crown entered into treaties whereby the

indigenous peoples gave up their claim to land in exchange for reservations and other

promises, but, with minor exceptions, this did not happen in British Columbia. The

Tsilhqot’in Nation is one of hundreds of indigenous groups in British Columbia with

unresolved land claims.

ARC - 48

[5] The issue of Tsilhqot’in title lay latent until 1983, when the Province

granted Carrier Lumber Ltd. a forest licence to cut trees in part of the territory at

issue. The Xeni Gwet’in First Nations government (one of the six bands that make up

the Tsilhqot’in Nation) objected and sought a declaration prohibiting commercial

logging on the land. The dispute led to the blockade of a bridge the forest company

was upgrading. The blockade ceased when the Premier promised that there would be

no further logging without the consent of the Xeni Gwet’in. Talks between the

Ministry of Forests and the Xeni Gwet’in ensued, but reached an impasse over the

Xeni Gwet’in claim to a right of first refusal to logging. In 1998, the original claim

was amended to include a claim for Aboriginal title on behalf of all Tsilhqot’in

people.

[6] The claim is confined to approximately five percent of what the

Tsilhqot’in — a total of about 3,000 people — regard as their traditional territory.

The area in question is sparsely populated. About 200 Tsilhqot’in people live there,

along with a handful of non-indigenous people who support the Tsilhqot’in claim to

title. There are no adverse claims from other indigenous groups. The federal and

provincial governments both oppose the title claim.

[7] In 2002, the trial commenced before Vickers J. of the British Columbia

Supreme Court, and continued for 339 days over a span of five years. The trial judge

spent time in the claim area and heard extensive evidence from elders, historians and

other experts. He found that the Tsilhqot’in people were in principle entitled to a

ARC - 49

declaration of Aboriginal title to a portion of the claim area as well as to a small area

outside the claim area. However, for procedural reasons which are no longer relied on

by the Province, he refused to make a declaration of title (2007 BCSC 1700, [2008] 1

C.N.L.R. 112).

[8] In 2012, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the Tsilhqot’in

claim to title had not been established, but left open the possibility that in the future,

the Tsilhqot’in might be able to prove title to specific sites within the area claimed.

For the rest of the claimed territory, the Tsilhqot’in were confined to Aboriginal

rights to hunt, trap and harvest (2012 BCCA 285, [2012] 33 B.C.L.R. (5th) 260).

[9] The Tsilhqot’in now ask this Court for a declaration of Aboriginal title

over the area designated by the trial judge, with one exception. A small portion of the

area designated by the trial judge consists of either privately owned or underwater

lands and no declaration of Aboriginal title over these lands is sought before this

Court. With respect to those areas designated by the trial judge that are not privately

owned or submerged lands, the Tsilhqot’in ask this Court to restore the trial judge’s

finding, affirm their title to the area he designated, and confirm that issuance of

forestry licences on the land unjustifiably infringed their rights under that title.

III. The Jurisprudential Backdrop

[10] In 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada ushered in the modern era of

Aboriginal land law by ruling that Aboriginal land rights survived European

ARC - 50

settlement and remain valid to the present unless extinguished by treaty or otherwise:

Calder v. Attorney General of British Columbia, [1973] S.C.R. 313. Although the

majority in Calder divided on whether title had been extinguished, its affirmation of

Aboriginal rights to land led the Government of Canada to begin treaty negotiations

with First Nations without treaties – mainly in British Columbia – resuming a policy

that had been abandoned in the 1920s: P. W. Hogg, “The Constitutional Basis of

Aboriginal Rights”, M. Morellato, ed., in Aboriginal Law Since Delgamuukw (2009),

3.

[11] Almost a decade after Calder, the enactment of s. 35 of the Constitution

Act, 1982 “recognized and affirmed” existing Aboriginal rights, although it took some

time for the meaning of this section to be fully fleshed out.

[12] In Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335, this Court confirmed the

potential for Aboriginal title in ancestral lands. The actual dispute concerned

government conduct with respect to reserve lands. The Court held that the

government had breached a fiduciary duty to the Musqueam Indian Band. In a

concurring opinion, Justice Dickson (later Chief Justice) addressed the theory

underlying Aboriginal title. He held that the Crown acquired radical or underlying

title to all the land in British Columbia at the time of sovereignty. However, this title

was burdened by the “pre-existing legal right” of Aboriginal people based on their

use and occupation of the land prior to European arrival (pp. 379-82). Dickson J.

ARC - 51

characterized this Aboriginal interest in the land as “an independent legal interest” (at

p. 385), which gives rise to a sui generis fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown.

[13] In 1990, this Court held that s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

constitutionally protected all Aboriginal rights that had not been extinguished prior to

April 17, 1982, and imposed a fiduciary duty on the Crown with respect to those

rights: R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075. The Court held that under s. 35,

legislation can infringe rights protected by s. 35 only if it passes a two-step

justification analysis: the legislation must further a “compelling and substantial”

purpose and account for the “priority” of the infringed Aboriginal interest under the

fiduciary obligation imposed on the Crown (at pp. 1113-19).

[14] The principles developed in Calder, Guerin and Sparrow were

consolidated and applied in the context of a claim for Aboriginal title in Delgamuukw

v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010. This Court confirmed the sui generis

nature of the rights and obligations to which the Crown’s relationship with Aboriginal

peoples gives rise, and stated that what makes Aboriginal title unique is that it arises

from possession before the assertion of British sovereignty, as distinguished from

other estates such as fee simple that arise afterward. The dual perspectives of the

common law and of the Aboriginal group bear equal weight in evaluating a claim for

Aboriginal title.

[15] The Court in Delgamuukw summarized the content of Aboriginal title by

two propositions, one positive and one negative. Positively, “[A]boriginal title

ARC - 52

encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land held pursuant to

that title for a variety of purposes, which need not be aspects of those [A]boriginal

practices, customs and traditions which are integral to distinctive [A]boriginal

cultures” (para. 117). Negatively, the “protected uses must not be irreconcilable with

the nature of the group’s attachment to that land” (ibid.) — that is, it is group title and

cannot be alienated in a way that deprives future generations of the control and

benefit of the land.

[16] The Court in Delgamuukw confirmed that infringements of Aboriginal

title can be justified under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 pursuant to the Sparrow

test and described this as a “necessary part of the reconciliation of [A]boriginal

societies with the broader political community of which they are part” (at para. 161),

quoting R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723, at para. 73. While Sparrow had spoken

of priority of Aboriginal rights infringed by regulations over non-aboriginal interests,

Delgamuukw articulated the “different” (at para. 168) approach of involvement of

Aboriginal peoples — varying depending on the severity of the infringement — in

decisions taken with respect to their lands.

[17] In Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73,

[2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, the Court applied the Delgamuukw idea of involvement of the

affected Aboriginal group in decisions about its land to the situation where

development is proposed on land over which Aboriginal title is asserted but has not

yet been established. The Court affirmed a spectrum of consultation. The Crown’s

ARC - 53

duty to consult and accommodate the asserted Aboriginal interest “is proportionate to

a preliminary assessment of the strength of the case supporting the existence of the

right or title, and to the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the right or

title claimed” (para. 24). Thus, the idea of proportionate balancing implicit in

Delgamuukw reappears in Haida. The Court in Haida stated that the Crown had not

only a moral duty, but a legal duty to negotiate in good faith to resolve land claims

(para. 25). The governing ethos is not one of competing interests but of

reconciliation.

[18] The jurisprudence just reviewed establishes a number of propositions that

touch on the issues that arise in this case, including:

Radical or underlying Crown title is subject to Aboriginal land interests where

they are established.

Aboriginal title gives the Aboriginal group the right to use and control the

land and enjoy its benefits.

Governments can infringe Aboriginal rights conferred by Aboriginal title but

only where they can justify the infringements on the basis of a compelling and

substantial purpose and establish that they are consistent with the Crown’s

fiduciary duty to the group.

ARC - 54

Resource development on claimed land to which title has not been established

requires the government to consult with the claimant Aboriginal group.

Governments are under a legal duty to negotiate in good faith to resolve

claims to ancestral lands.

Against this background, I turn to the issues raised in this appeal.

IV. Pleadings in Aboriginal Land Claims Cases

[19] The Province, to its credit, no longer contends that the claim should be

barred because of defects in the pleadings. However, it may be useful to address how

to approach pleadings in land claims, in view of their importance to future land

claims.

[20] I agree with the Court of Appeal that a functional approach should be

taken to pleadings in Aboriginal cases. The function of pleadings is to provide the

parties and the court with an outline of the material allegations and relief sought.

Where pleadings achieve this aim, minor defects should be overlooked, in the absence

of clear prejudice. A number of considerations support this approach.

[21] First, in a case such as this, the legal principles may be unclear at the

outset, making it difficult to frame the claim with exactitude.

ARC - 55

[22] Second, in these cases, the evidence as to how the land was used may be

uncertain at the outset. As the claim proceeds, elders will come forward and experts

will be engaged. Through the course of the trial, the historic practices of the

Aboriginal group in question will be expounded, tested and clarified. The Court of

Appeal correctly recognized that determining whether Aboriginal title is made out

over a pleaded area is not an “all or nothing” proposition (at para. 117):

The occupation of traditional territories by First Nations prior to the assertion of Crown sovereignty was not an occupation based on a Torrens system, or, indeed, on any precise boundaries. Except where impassable (or virtually impassable) natural boundaries existed, the limits of a traditional territory were typically ill-defined and fluid. . . . [Therefore] requir[ing] proof of Aboriginal title precisely mirroring the claim would be too exacting. [para. 118]

[23] Third, cases such as this require an approach that results in decisions

based on the best evidence that emerges, not what a lawyer may have envisaged when

drafting the initial claim. What is at stake is nothing less than justice for the

Aboriginal group and its descendants, and the reconciliation between the group and

broader society. A technical approach to pleadings would serve neither goal. It is in

the broader public interest that land claims and rights issues be resolved in a way that

reflects the substance of the matter. Only thus can the project of reconciliation this

Court spoke of in Delgamuukw be achieved.

V. Is Aboriginal Title Established?

A. The Test for Aboriginal Title

ARC - 56

[24] How should the courts determine whether a semi-nomadic indigenous

group has title to lands? This Court has never directly answered this question. The

courts below disagreed on the correct approach. We must now clarify the test.

[25] As we have seen, the Delgamuukw test for Aboriginal title to land is

based on “occupation” prior to assertion of European sovereignty. To ground

Aboriginal title this occupation must possess three characteristics. It must be

sufficient; it must be continuous (where present occupation is relied on); and it must

be exclusive.

[26] The test was set out in Delgamuukw, per Lamer C.J., at para. 143:

In order to make out a claim for [A]boriginal title, the [A]boriginal group asserting title must satisfy the following criteria: (i) the land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty, (ii) if present occupation is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, there must be a continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation, and (iii) at sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive.

[27] The trial judge in this case held that “occupation” was established for the

purpose of proving title by showing regular and exclusive use of sites or territory. On

this basis, he concluded that the Tsilhqot’in had established title not only to village

sites and areas maintained for the harvesting of roots and berries, but to larger

territories which their ancestors used regularly and exclusively for hunting, fishing

and other activities.

ARC - 57

[28] The Court of Appeal disagreed and applied a narrower test for Aboriginal

title — site-specific occupation. It held that to prove sufficient occupation for title to

land, an Aboriginal group must prove that its ancestors intensively used a definite

tract of land with reasonably defined boundaries at the time of European sovereignty.

[29] For semi-nomadic Aboriginal groups like the Tsilhqot’in, the Court of

Appeal’s approach results in small islands of title surrounded by larger territories

where the group possesses only Aboriginal rights to engage in activities like hunting

and trapping. By contrast, on the trial judge’s approach, the group would enjoy title

to all the territory that their ancestors regularly and exclusively used at the time of

assertion of European sovereignty.

[30] Against this backdrop, I return to the requirements for Aboriginal title:

sufficient pre-sovereignty occupation; continuous occupation (where present

occupation is relied on); and exclusive historic occupation.

[31] Should the three elements of the Delgamuukw test be considered

independently, or as related aspects of a single concept? The High Court of Australia

has expressed the view that there is little merit in considering aspects of occupancy

separately. In Western Australia v. Ward (2002), 213 C.L.R. 1, the court stated as

follows, at para 89:

The expression “possession, occupation, use and enjoyment . . . to the exclusion of all others” is a composite expression directed to describing a particular measure of control over access to land. To break the

ARC - 58

expression into its constituent elements is apt to mislead. In particular, to speak of “possession” of the land, as distinct from possession to the exclusion of all others, invites attention to the common law content of the concept of possession and whatever notions of control over access might be thought to be attached to it, rather than to the relevant task, which is to identify how rights and interests possessed under traditional law and custom can properly find expression in common law terms.

[32] In my view, the concepts of sufficiency, continuity and exclusivity

provide useful lenses through which to view the question of Aboriginal title. This

said, the court must be careful not to lose or distort the Aboriginal perspective by

forcing ancestral practices into the square boxes of common law concepts, thus

frustrating the goal of faithfully translating pre-sovereignty Aboriginal interests into

equivalent modern legal rights. Sufficiency, continuity and exclusivity are not ends

in themselves, but inquiries that shed light on whether Aboriginal title is established.

1. Sufficiency of Occupation

[33] The first requirement — and the one that lies at the heart of this appeal —

is that the occupation be sufficient to ground Aboriginal title. It is clear from

Delgamuukw that not every passing traverse or use grounds title. What then

constitutes sufficient occupation to ground title?

[34] The question of sufficient occupation must be approached from both the

common law perspective and the Aboriginal perspective (Delgamuukw, at para. 147);

see also R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507.

ARC - 59

[35] The Aboriginal perspective focuses on laws, practices, customs and

traditions of the group (Delgamuukw, at para. 148). In considering this perspective

for the purpose of Aboriginal title, “one must take into account the group’s size,

manner of life, material resources, and technological abilities, and the character of the

lands claimed”: B. Slattery, “Understanding Aboriginal Rights” (1987), 66 Can. Bar

Rev. 727, at p. 758, quoted with approval in Delgamuukw, at para. 149.

[36] The common law perspective imports the idea of possession and control

of the lands. At common law, possession extends beyond sites that are physically

occupied, like a house, to surrounding lands that are used and over which effective

control is exercised.

[37] Sufficiency of occupation is a context-specific inquiry. “[O]ccupation

may be established in a variety of ways, ranging from the construction of dwellings

through cultivation and enclosure of fields to regular use of definite tracts of land for

hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting its resources” (Delgamuukw, at para. 149).

The intensity and frequency of the use may vary with the characteristics of the

Aboriginal group asserting title and the character of the land over which title is

asserted. Here, for example, the land, while extensive, was harsh and was capable of

supporting only 100 to 1,000 people. The fact that the Aboriginal group was only

about 400 people must be considered in the context of the carrying capacity of the

land in determining whether regular use of definite tracts of land is made out.

ARC - 60

[38] To sufficiently occupy the land for purposes of title, the Aboriginal group

in question must show that it has historically acted in a way that would communicate

to third parties that it held the land for its own purposes. This standard does not

demand notorious or visible use akin to proving a claim for adverse possession, but

neither can the occupation be purely subjective or internal. There must be evidence

of a strong presence on or over the land claimed, manifesting itself in acts of

occupation that could reasonably be interpreted as demonstrating that the land in

question belonged to, was controlled by, or was under the exclusive stewardship of

the claimant group. As just discussed, the kinds of acts necessary to indicate a

permanent presence and intention to hold and use the land for the group’s purposes

are dependent on the manner of life of the people and the nature of the land.

Cultivated fields, constructed dwelling houses, invested labour, and a consistent

presence on parts of the land may be sufficient, but are not essential to establish

occupation. The notion of occupation must also reflect the way of life of the

Aboriginal people, including those who were nomadic or semi-nomadic.

[39] In R. v. Marshall, 2003 NSCA 105, 218 N.S.R. (2d) 78, at paras. 135-38,

Cromwell J.A (as he then was), in reasoning I adopt, likens the sufficiency of

occupation required to establish Aboriginal title to the requirements for general

occupancy at common law. A general occupant at common law is a person asserting

possession of land over which no one else has a present interest or with respect to

which title is uncertain. Cromwell J.A. cites (at para. 136) the following extract from

K. McNeil, Common Law Aboriginal Title (1989), at pp. 198-200:

ARC - 61

What, then, did one have to do to acquire a title by occupancy? . . . [I]t appears . . . that . . . a casual entry, such as riding over land to hunt or hawk, or travelling across it, did not make an occupant, such acts “being only transitory and to a particular purpose, which leaves no marks of an appropriation, or of an intention to possess for the separate use of the rider”. There must, therefore, have been an actual entry, and some act or acts from which an intention to occupy the land could be inferred. Significantly, the acts and intention had to relate only to the occupation — it was quite unnecessary for a potential occupant to claim, or even wish to acquire, the vacant estate, for the law cast it upon him by virtue of his occupation alone. . . .

Further guidance on what constitutes occupation can be gained from cases involving land to which title is uncertain. Generally, any acts on or in relation to land that indicate an intention to hold or use it for one’s own purposes are evidence of occupation. Apart from the obvious, such as enclosing, cultivating, mining, building upon, maintaining, and warning trespassers off land, any number of other acts, including cutting trees or grass, fishing in tracts of water, and even perambulation, may be relied upon. The weight given to such acts depends partly on the nature of the land, and the purposes for which it can reasonably be used. [Emphasis added.]

[40] Cromwell J.A. in Marshall went on to state that this standard is different

from the doctrine of constructive possession. The goal is not to attribute possession

in the absence of physical acts of occupation, but to define the quality of the physical

acts of occupation that demonstrate possession at law (para. 137). He concluded:

I would adopt, in general terms, Professor McNeil’s analysis that the appropriate standard of occupation, from the common law perspective, is the middle ground between the minimal occupation which would permit a person to sue a wrong-doer in trespass and the most onerous standard required to ground title by adverse possession as against a true owner. . . . Where, as here, we are dealing with a large expanse of territory which was not cultivated, acts such as continual, though changing, settlement and wide-ranging use for fishing, hunting and gathering should be given more weight than they would be if dealing with enclosed, cultivated land. Perhaps most significantly . . . it is impossible to confine the evidence to

ARC - 62

the very precise spot on which the cutting was done: Pollock and Wright at p. 32. Instead, the question must be whether the acts of occupation in particular areas show that the whole area was occupied by the claimant. [para. 138]

[41] In summary, what is required is a culturally sensitive approach to

sufficiency of occupation based on the dual perspectives of the Aboriginal group in

question — its laws, practices, size, technological ability and the character of the land

claimed — and the common law notion of possession as a basis for title. It is not

possible to list every indicia of occupation that might apply in a particular case. The

common law test for possession — which requires an intention to occupy or hold land

for the purposes of the occupant — must be considered alongside the perspective of

the Aboriginal group which, depending on its size and manner of living, might

conceive of possession of land in a somewhat different manner than did the common

law.

[42] There is no suggestion in the jurisprudence or scholarship that Aboriginal

title is confined to specific village sites or farms, as the Court of Appeal held. Rather,

a culturally sensitive approach suggests that regular use of territories for hunting,

fishing, trapping and foraging is “sufficient” use to ground Aboriginal title, provided

that such use, on the facts of a particular case, evinces an intention on the part of the

Aboriginal group to hold or possess the land in a manner comparable to what would

be required to establish title at common law.

ARC - 63

[43] The Province argues that this Court in R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard,

2005 SCC 43, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220, rejected a territorial approach to title, relying on a

comment by Professor K. McNeil that the Court there “appears to have rejected the

territorial approach of the Court of Appeal” (“Aboriginal Title and the Supreme

Court: What’s Happening?” (2006), 69 Sask. L. Rev. 281, cited in British Columbia

factum, para. 100). In fact, this Court in Marshall; Bernard did not reject a territorial

approach, but held only (at para. 72) that there must be “proof of sufficiently regular

and exclusive use” of the land in question, a requirement established in Delgamuukw.

[44] The Court in Marshall; Bernard confirmed that nomadic and semi-

nomadic groups could establish title to land, provided they establish sufficient

physical possession, which is a question of fact. While “[n]ot every nomadic passage

or use will ground title to land”, the Court confirmed that Delgamuukw contemplates

that “regular use of definite tracts of land for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting

its resources” could suffice (para. 66). While the issue was framed in terms of

whether the common law test for possession was met, the Court did not resile from

the need to consider the perspective of the Aboriginal group in question; sufficient

occupation is a “question of fact, depending on all the circumstances, in particular the

nature of the land and the manner in which it is commonly used” (ibid.).

2. Continuity of Occupation

ARC - 64

[45] Where present occupation is relied on as proof of occupation pre-

sovereignty, a second requirement arises — continuity between present and pre-

sovereignty occupation.

[46] The concept of continuity does not require Aboriginal groups to provide

evidence of an unbroken chain of continuity between their current practices, customs

and traditions, and those which existed prior to contact (Van der Peet, at para. 65).

The same applies to Aboriginal title. Continuity simply means that for evidence of

present occupation to establish an inference of pre-sovereignty occupation, the

present occupation must be rooted in pre-sovereignty times. This is a question for the

trier of fact in each case.

3. Exclusivity of Occupation

[47] The third requirement is exclusive occupation of the land at the time of

sovereignty. The Aboriginal group must have had “the intention and capacity to retain

exclusive control” over the lands (Delgamuukw, at para. 156, quoting McNeil,

Common Law Aboriginal Title, at p. 204 (emphasis added)). Regular use without

exclusivity may give rise to usufructory Aboriginal rights; for Aboriginal title, the use

must have been exclusive.

[48] Exclusivity should be understood in the sense of intention and capacity to

control the land. The fact that other groups or individuals were on the land does not

necessarily negate exclusivity of occupation. Whether a claimant group had the

ARC - 65

intention and capacity to control the land at the time of sovereignty is a question of

fact for the trial judge and depends on various factors such as the characteristics of

the claimant group, the nature of other groups in the area, and the characteristics of

the land in question. Exclusivity can be established by proof that others were

excluded from the land, or by proof that others were only allowed access to the land

with the permission of the claimant group. The fact that permission was requested

and granted or refused, or that treaties were made with other groups, may show

intention and capacity to control the land. Even the lack of challenges to occupancy

may support an inference of an established group’s intention and capacity to control.

[49] As with sufficiency of occupation, the exclusivity requirement must be

approached from both the common law and Aboriginal perspectives, and must take

into account the context and characteristics of the Aboriginal society. The Court in

Delgamuukw explained as follows, at para. 157:

A consideration of the [A]boriginal perspective may also lead to the conclusion that trespass by other [A]boriginal groups does not undermine, and that presence of those groups by permission may reinforce, the exclusive occupation of the [A]boriginal group asserting title. For example, the [A]boriginal group asserting the claim to [A]boriginal title may have trespass laws which are proof of exclusive occupation, such that the presence of trespassers does not count as evidence against exclusivity. As well, [A]boriginal laws under which permission may be granted to other [A]boriginal groups to use or reside even temporarily on land would reinforce the finding of exclusive occupation. Indeed, if that permission were the subject of treaties between the [A]boriginal nations in question, those treaties would also form part of the [A]boriginal perspective.

4. Summary

ARC - 66

[50] The claimant group bears the onus of establishing Aboriginal title. The

task is to identify how pre-sovereignty rights and interests can properly find

expression in modern common law terms. In asking whether Aboriginal title is

established, the general requirements are: (1) “sufficient occupation” of the land

claimed to establish title at the time of assertion of European sovereignty; (2)

continuity of occupation where present occupation is relied on; and (3) exclusive

historic occupation. In determining what constitutes sufficient occupation, one looks

to the Aboriginal culture and practices, and compares them in a culturally sensitive

way with what was required at common law to establish title on the basis of

occupation. Occupation sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to

specific sites of settlement but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for

hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised

effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty.

B. Was Aboriginal Title Established in this Case?

[51] The trial judge applied a test of regular and exclusive use of the land.

This is consistent with the correct legal test. This leaves the question of whether he

applied it appropriately to the evidence in this case.

[52] Whether the evidence in a particular case supports Aboriginal title is a

question of fact for the trial judge: Marshall; Bernard. The question therefore is

whether the Province has shown that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding

error in his factual conclusions.

ARC - 67

[53] I approach the question through the lenses of sufficiency, continuity and

exclusivity discussed above.

[54] I will not repeat my earlier comments on what is required to establish

sufficiency of occupation. Regular use of the territory suffices to establish

sufficiency; the concept is not confined to continuously occupied village sites. The

question must be approached from the perspective of the Aboriginal group as well as

the common law, bearing in mind the customs of the people and the nature of the

land.

[55] The evidence in this case supports the trial judge’s conclusion of

sufficient occupation. While the population was small, the trial judge found evidence

that the parts of the land to which he found title were regularly used by the

Tsilhqot’in. The Court of Appeal did not take serious issue with these findings.

[56] Rather, the Court of Appeal based its rejection of Aboriginal title on the

legal proposition that regular use of territory could not ground Aboriginal title —

only the regular presence on or intensive occupation of particular tracts would suffice.

That view, as discussed earlier, is not supported by the jurisprudence; on the contrary,

Delgamuukw affirms a territorial use-based approach to Aboriginal title.

[57] This brings me to continuity. There is some reliance on present

occupation for the title claim in this case, raising the question of continuity. The

evidence adduced and later relied on in parts 5-7 of the trial judge’s reasons speak of

ARC - 68

events that took place as late as 1999. The trial judge considered this direct evidence

of more recent occupation alongside archeological evidence, historical evidence, and

oral evidence from Aboriginal elders, all of which indicated a continuous Tsilhqot’in

presence in the claim area. The geographic proximity between sites for which

evidence of recent occupation was tendered, and those for which direct evidence of

historic occupation existed, further supported an inference of continuous occupation.

Paragraph 945 states, under the heading of “Continuity”, that the “Tsilhqot’in people

have continuously occupied the Claim Area before and after sovereignty assertion”. I

see no reason to disturb this finding.

[58] Finally, I come to exclusivity. The trial judge found that the Tsilhqot’in,

prior to the assertion of sovereignty, repelled other people from their land and

demanded permission from outsiders who wished to pass over it. He concluded from

this that the Tsilhqot’in treated the land as exclusively theirs. There is no basis upon

which to disturb that finding.

[59] The Province goes on to argue that the trial judge’s conclusions on how

particular parts of the land were used cannot be sustained. The Province says:

The boundaries drawn by the trial judge are arbitrary and contradicted by

some of the evidence (factum, at paras. 141 and 142).

The trial judge relied on a map the validity of which the Province disputes

(para. 143).

ARC - 69

The Tsilhqot’in population, that the trial judge found to be 400 at the time of

sovereignty assertion, could not have physically occupied the 1,900 sq. km of

land over which title was found (para. 144).

The trial judge failed to identify specific areas with adequate precision,

instead relying on vague descriptions (para. 145).

A close examination of the details of the inconsistent and arbitrary manner in

which the trial judge defined the areas subject to Aboriginal title demonstrates

the unreliability of his approach (para. 147).

[60] Most of the Province’s criticisms of the trial judge’s findings on the facts

are rooted in its erroneous thesis that only specific, intensively occupied areas can

support Aboriginal title. The concern with the small size of the Tsilhqot’in

population in 1846 makes sense only if one assumes a narrow test of intensive

occupation and if one ignores the character of the land in question which was

mountainous and could not have sustained a much larger population. The alleged

failure to identify particular areas with precision likewise only makes sense if one

assumes a narrow test of intensive occupation. The other criticisms amount to

pointing out conflicting evidence. It was the trial judge’s task to sort out conflicting

evidence and make findings of fact. The presence of conflicting evidence does not

demonstrate palpable and overriding error.

ARC - 70

[61] The Province has not established that the conclusions of the trial judge

are unsupported by the evidence or otherwise in error. Nor has it established his

conclusions were arbitrary or insufficiently precise. The trial judge was faced with

the herculean task of drawing conclusions from a huge body of evidence produced

over 339 trial days spanning a five-year period. Much of the evidence was historic

evidence and therefore by its nature sometimes imprecise. The trial judge spent long

periods in the claim area with witnesses, hearing evidence about how particular parts

of the area were used. Absent demonstrated error, his findings should not be

disturbed.

[62] This said, I have accepted the Province’s invitation to review the maps

and the evidence and evaluate the trial judge’s conclusions as to which areas support

a declaration of Aboriginal title. For ease of reference, I attach a map showing the

various territories and how the trial judge treated them (Appendix; see Appellant’s

factum, “Appendix A”). The territorial boundaries drawn by the trial judge and his

conclusions as to Aboriginal title appear to be logical and fully supported by the

evidence.

[63] The trial judge divided the claim area into six regions and then

considered a host of individual sites within each region. He examined expert

archeological evidence, historical evidence and oral evidence from Aboriginal elders

referring to these specific sites. At some of these sites, although the evidence did

suggest a Tsilhqot’in presence, he found it insufficient to establish regular and

ARC - 71

exclusive occupancy. At other sites, he held that the evidence did establish regular

and exclusive occupancy. By examining a large number of individual sites, the trial

judge was able to infer the boundaries within which the Tsilhqot’in regularly and

exclusively occupied the land. The trial judge, in proceeding this way, made no legal

error.

[64] The Province also criticises the trial judge for offering his opinion on

areas outside the claim area. This, the Province says, went beyond the mandate of a

trial judge who should pronounce only on pleaded matters.

[65] In my view, this criticism is misplaced. It is clear that no declaration of

title could be made over areas outside those pleaded. The trial judge offered his

comments on areas outside the claim area, not as binding rulings in the case, but to

provide assistance in future land claims negotiations. Having canvassed the evidence

and arrived at conclusions on it, it made economic and practical sense for the trial

judge to give the parties the benefit of his views. Moreover, as I noted earlier in

discussing the proper approach to pleadings in cases where Aboriginal title is at issue,

these cases raise special considerations. Often, the ambit of a claim cannot be drawn

with precision at the commencement of proceedings. The true state of affairs unfolds

only gradually as the evidence emerges over what may be a lengthy period of time. If

at the end of the process the boundaries of the initial claim and the boundaries

suggested by the evidence are different, the trial judge should not be faulted for

pointing that out.

ARC - 72

[66] I conclude that the trial judge was correct in his assessment that the

Tsilhqot’in occupation was both sufficient and exclusive at the time of sovereignty.

There was ample direct evidence of occupation at sovereignty, which was

additionally buttressed by evidence of more recent continuous occupation.

VI. What Rights Does Aboriginal Title Confer?

[67] As we have seen, Delgamuukw establishes that Aboriginal title

“encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land held pursuant to

that title for a variety of purposes” (at para. 117), including non-traditional purposes,

provided these uses can be reconciled with the communal and ongoing nature of the

group’s attachment to the land. Subject to this inherent limit, the title-holding group

has the right to choose the uses to which the land is put and to enjoy its economic

fruits (para. 166).

[68] I will first discuss the legal characterization of the Aboriginal title. I will

then offer observations on what Aboriginal title provides to its holders and what

limits it is subject to.

A. The Legal Characterization of Aboriginal Title

[69] The starting point in characterizing the legal nature of Aboriginal title is

Justice Dickson’s concurring judgment in Guerin, discussed earlier. At the time of

assertion of European sovereignty, the Crown acquired radical or underlying title to

ARC - 73

all the land in the province. This Crown title, however, was burdened by the pre-

existing legal rights of Aboriginal people who occupied and used the land prior to

European arrival. The doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land prior to

European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the

Royal Proclamation (1763), R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 1. The Aboriginal interest in

land that burdens the Crown’s underlying title is an independent legal interest, which

gives rise to a fiduciary duty on the part of the Crown.

[70] The content of the Crown’s underlying title is what is left when

Aboriginal title is subtracted from it: s. 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867;

Delgamuukw. As we have seen, Delgamuukw establishes that Aboriginal title gives

“the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land . . . for a variety of purposes”,

not confined to traditional or “distinctive” uses (para. 117). In other words,

Aboriginal title is a beneficial interest in the land: Guerin, at p. 382. In simple terms,

the title holders have the right to the benefits associated with the land — to use it,

enjoy it and profit from its economic development. As such, the Crown does not

retain a beneficial interest in Aboriginal title land.

[71] What remains, then, of the Crown’s radical or underlying title to lands

held under Aboriginal title? The authorities suggest two related elements — a

fiduciary duty owed by the Crown to Aboriginal people when dealing with Aboriginal

lands, and the right to encroach on Aboriginal title if the government can justify this

in the broader public interest under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court in

ARC - 74

Delgamuukw referred to this as a process of reconciling Aboriginal interests with the

broader public interests under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[72] The characteristics of Aboriginal title flow from the special relationship

between the Crown and the Aboriginal group in question. It is this relationship that

makes Aboriginal title sui generis or unique. Aboriginal title is what it is — the

unique product of the historic relationship between the Crown and the Aboriginal

group in question. Analogies to other forms of property ownership — for example,

fee simple — may help us to understand aspects of Aboriginal title. But they cannot

dictate precisely what it is or is not. As La Forest J. put it in Delgamuukw, at para.

190, Aboriginal title “is not equated with fee simple ownership; nor can it be

described with reference to traditional property law concepts”.

B. The Incidents of Aboriginal Title

[73] Aboriginal title confers ownership rights similar to those associated with

fee simple, including: the right to decide how the land will be used; the right of

enjoyment and occupancy of the land; the right to possess the land; the right to the

economic benefits of the land; and the right to pro-actively use and manage the land.

[74] Aboriginal title, however, comes with an important restriction — it is

collective title held not only for the present generation but for all succeeding

generations. This means it cannot be alienated except to the Crown or encumbered in

ways that would prevent future generations of the group from using and enjoying it.

ARC - 75

Nor can the land be developed or misused in a way that would substantially deprive

future generations of the benefit of the land. Some changes — even permanent

changes – to the land may be possible. Whether a particular use is irreconcilable with

the ability of succeeding generations to benefit from the land will be a matter to be

determined when the issue arises.

[75] The rights and restrictions on Aboriginal title flow from the legal interest

Aboriginal title confers, which in turn flows from the fact of Aboriginal occupancy at

the time of European sovereignty which attached as a burden on the underlying title

asserted by the Crown at sovereignty. Aboriginal title post-sovereignty reflects the

fact of Aboriginal occupancy pre-sovereignty, with all the pre-sovereignty incidents

of use and enjoyment that were part of the collective title enjoyed by the ancestors of

the claimant group — most notably the right to control how the land is used.

However, these uses are not confined to the uses and customs of pre-sovereignty

times; like other land-owners, Aboriginal title holders of modern times can use their

land in modern ways, if that is their choice.

[76] The right to control the land conferred by Aboriginal title means that

governments and others seeking to use the land must obtain the consent of the

Aboriginal title holders. If the Aboriginal group does not consent to the use, the

government’s only recourse is to establish that the proposed incursion on the land is

justified under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

C. Justification of Infringement

ARC - 76

[77] To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the

basis of the broader public good, the government must show: (1) that it discharged its

procedural duty to consult and accommodate, (2) that its actions were backed by a

compelling and substantial objective; and (3) that the governmental action is

consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group: Sparrow.

[78] The duty to consult is a procedural duty that arises from the honour of the

Crown prior to confirmation of title. Where the Crown has real or constructive

knowledge of the potential or actual existence of Aboriginal title, and contemplates

conduct that might adversely affect it, the Crown is obliged to consult with the group

asserting Aboriginal title and, if appropriate, accommodate the Aboriginal right. The

duty to consult must be discharged prior to carrying out the action that could

adversely affect the right.

[79] The degree of consultation and accommodation required lies on a

spectrum as discussed in Haida. In general, the level of consultation and

accommodation required is proportionate to the strength of the claim and to the

seriousness of the adverse impact the contemplated governmental action would have

on the claimed right. “A dubious or peripheral claim may attract a mere duty of

notice, while a stronger claim may attract more stringent duties” (para. 37). The

required level of consultation and accommodation is greatest where title has been

established. Where consultation or accommodation is found to be inadequate, the

government decision can be suspended or quashed.

ARC - 77

[80] Where Aboriginal title is unproven, the Crown owes a procedural duty

imposed by the honour of the Crown to consult and, if appropriate, accommodate the

unproven Aboriginal interest. By contrast, where title has been established, the

Crown must not only comply with its procedural duties, but must also ensure that the

proposed government action is substantively consistent with the requirements of s. 35

of the Constitution Act, 1982. This requires both a compelling and substantial

governmental objective and that the government action is consistent with the

fiduciary duty owed by the Crown to the Aboriginal group.

[81] I agree with the Court of Appeal that the compelling and substantial

objective of the government must be considered from the Aboriginal perspective as

well as from the perspective of the broader public. As stated in Gladstone, at para.

72:

[T]he objectives which can be said to be compelling and substantial will be those directed at either the recognition of the prior occupation of North America by [A]boriginal peoples or — and at the level of justification it is this purpose which may well be most relevant — at the reconciliation of [A]boriginal prior occupation with the assertion of the sovereignty of the Crown. [Emphasis added.]

[82] As Delgamuukw explains, the process of reconciling Aboriginal interests

with the broader interests of society as a whole is the raison d’être of the principle of

justification. Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals are “all here to stay” and must of

necessity move forward in a process of reconciliation (para. 186). To constitute a

compelling and substantial objective, the broader public goal asserted by the

ARC - 78

government must further the goal of reconciliation, having regard to both the

Aboriginal interest and the broader public objective.

[83] What interests are potentially capable of justifying an incursion on

Aboriginal title? In Delgamuukw, this Court, per Lamer C.J., offered this:

In the wake of Gladstone, the range of legislative objectives that can justify the infringement of [A]boriginal title is fairly broad. Most of these objectives can be traced to the reconciliation of the prior occupation of North America by [A]boriginal peoples with the assertion of Crown sovereignty, which entails the recognition that “distinctive [A]boriginal societies exist within, and are a part of, a broader social, political and economic community” (at para. 73). In my opinion, the development of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of [A]boriginal title. Whether a particular measure or government act can be explained by reference to one of those objectives, however, is ultimately a question of fact that will have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. [Emphasis added; emphasis in original deleted; para 165]

[84] If a compelling and substantial public purpose is established, the

government must go on to show that the proposed incursion on the Aboriginal right is

consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal people.

[85] The Crown’s fiduciary duty in the context of justification merits further

discussion. The Crown’s underlying title in the land is held for the benefit of the

Aboriginal group and constrained by the Crown’s fiduciary or trust obligation to the

group. This impacts the justification process in two ways.

ARC - 79

[86] First, the Crown’s fiduciary duty means that the government must act in a

way that respects the fact that Aboriginal title is a group interest that inheres in

present and future generations. The beneficial interest in the land held by the

Aboriginal group vests communally in the title-holding group. This means that

incursions on Aboriginal title cannot be justified if they would substantially deprive

future generations of the benefit of the land.

[87] Second, the Crown’s fiduciary duty infuses an obligation of

proportionality into the justification process. Implicit in the Crown’s fiduciary duty

to the Aboriginal group is the requirement that the incursion is necessary to achieve

the government’s goal (rational connection); that the government go no further than

necessary to achieve it (minimal impairment); and that the benefits that may be

expected to flow from that goal are not outweighed by adverse effects on the

Aboriginal interest (proportionality of impact). The requirement of proportionality is

inherent in the Delgamuukw process of reconciliation and was echoed in Haida’s

insistence that the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate at the claims stage “is

proportionate to a preliminary assessment of the strength of the case supporting the

existence of the right or title, and to the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect

upon the right or title claimed” (para. 39).

[88] In summary, Aboriginal title confers on the group that holds it the

exclusive right to decide how the land is used and the right to benefit from those uses,

subject to one carve-out — that the uses must be consistent with the group nature of

ARC - 80

the interest and the enjoyment of the land by future generations. Government

incursions not consented to by the title-holding group must be undertaken in

accordance with the Crown’s procedural duty to consult and must also be justified on

the basis of a compelling and substantial public interest, and must be consistent with

the Crown’s fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal group.

D. Remedies and Transition

[89] Prior to establishment of title by court declaration or agreement, the

Crown is required to consult in good faith with any Aboriginal groups asserting title

to the land about proposed uses of the land and, if appropriate, accommodate the

interests of such claimant groups. The level of consultation and accommodation

required varies with the strength of the Aboriginal group’s claim to the land and the

seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the interest claimed. If the Crown

fails to discharge its duty to consult, various remedies are available including

injunctive relief, damages, or an order that consultation or accommodation be carried

out: Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43, [2010] 2

S.C.R. 650, at para. 37.

[90] After Aboriginal title to land has been established by court declaration or

agreement, the Crown must seek the consent of the title-holding Aboriginal group to

developments on the land. Absent consent, development of title land cannot proceed

unless the Crown has discharged its duty to consult and can justify the intrusion on

title under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The usual remedies that lie for breach

ARC - 81

of interests in land are available, adapted as may be necessary to reflect the special

nature of Aboriginal title and the fiduciary obligation owed by the Crown to the

holders of Aboriginal title.

[91] The practical result may be a spectrum of duties applicable over time in a

particular case. At the claims stage, prior to establishment of Aboriginal title, the

Crown owes a good faith duty to consult with the group concerned and, if

appropriate, accommodate its interests. As the claim strength increases, the required

level of consultation and accommodation correspondingly increases. Where a claim

is particularly strong — for example, shortly before a court declaration of title —

appropriate care must be taken to preserve the Aboriginal interest pending final

resolution of the claim. Finally, once title is established, the Crown cannot proceed

with development of title land not consented to by the title-holding group unless it has

discharged its duty to consult and the development is justified pursuant to s. 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982.

[92] Once title is established, it may be necessary for the Crown to reassess

prior conduct in light of the new reality in order to faithfully discharge its fiduciary

duty to the title-holding group going forward. For example, if the Crown begins a

project without consent prior to Aboriginal title being established, it may be required

to cancel the project upon establishment of the title if continuation of the project

would be unjustifiably infringing. Similarly, if legislation was validly enacted before

ARC - 82

title was established, such legislation may be rendered inapplicable going forward to

the extent that it unjustifiably infringes Aboriginal title.

E. What Duties Were Owed by the Crown at the Time of the Government Action?

[93] Prior to the declaration of Aboriginal title, the Province had a duty to

consult and accommodate the claimed Tsilhqot’in interest in the land. As the

Tsilhqot’in had a strong prima facie claim to the land at the time of the impugned

government action and the intrusion was significant, the duty to consult owed by the

Crown fell at the high end of the spectrum described in Haida and required

significant consultation and accommodation in order to preserve the Tsilhqot’in

interest.

[94] With the declaration of title, the Tsilhqot’in have now established

Aboriginal title to the portion of the lands designated by the trial judge with the

exception as set out in para. 9 of these reasons. This gives them the right to

determine, subject to the inherent limits of group title held for future generations, the

uses to which the land is put and to enjoy its economic fruits. As we have seen, this

is not merely a right of first refusal with respect to Crown land management or usage

plans. Rather, it is the right to proactively use and manage the land.

VII. Breach of the Duty to Consult

ARC - 83

[95] The alleged breach in this case arises from the issuance by the Province

of licences permitting third parties to conduct forestry activity and construct related

infrastructure on the land in 1983 and onwards, before title was declared. During this

time, the Tsilhqot’in held an interest in the land that was not yet legally recognized.

The honour of the Crown required that the Province consult them on uses of the lands

and accommodate their interests. The Province did neither and breached its duty

owed to the Tsilhqot’in.

[96] The Crown’s duty to consult was breached when Crown officials engaged

in the planning process for the removal of timber. The inclusion of timber on

Aboriginal title land in a timber supply area, the approval of cut blocks on Aboriginal

title land in a forest development plan, and the allocation of cutting permits all

occurred without any meaningful consultation with the Tsilhqot’in.

[97] I add this. Governments and individuals proposing to use or exploit land,

whether before or after a declaration of Aboriginal title, can avoid a charge of

infringement or failure to adequately consult by obtaining the consent of the

interested Aboriginal group.

VIII. Provincial Laws and Aboriginal Title

[98] As discussed, I have concluded that the Province breached its duty to

consult and accommodate the Tsilhqot’in interest in the land. This is sufficient to

dispose of the appeal.

ARC - 84

[99] However, the parties made extensive submissions on the application of

the Forest Act to Aboriginal title land. This issue was dealt with by the courts below

and is of pressing importance to the Tsilhqot’in people and other Aboriginal groups in

British Columbia and elsewhere. It is therefore appropriate that we deal with it.

[100] The following questions arise: (1) Do provincial laws of general

application apply to land held under Aboriginal title and, if so, how?; (2) Does the

British Columbia Forest Act on its face apply to land held under Aboriginal title?; and

(3) If the Forest Act on its face applies, is its application ousted by the operation of

the Constitution of Canada? I will discuss each of these questions in turn.

A. Do Provincial Laws of General Application Apply to Land Held Under Aboriginal Title?

[101] Broadly put, provincial laws of general application apply to lands held

under Aboriginal title. However, as we shall see, there are important constitutional

limits on this proposition.

[102] As a general proposition, provincial governments have the power to

regulate land use within the province. This applies to all lands, whether held by the

Crown, by private owners, or by the holders of Aboriginal title. The foundation for

this power lies in s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives the provinces

the power to legislate with respect to property and civil rights in the province.

ARC - 85

[103] Provincial power to regulate land held under Aboriginal title is

constitutionally limited in two ways. First, it is limited by s. 35 of the Constitution

Act, 1982. Section 35 requires any abridgment of the rights flowing from Aboriginal

title to be backed by a compelling and substantial governmental objective and to be

consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary relationship with title holders. Second, a

province’s power to regulate lands under Aboriginal title may in some situations also

be limited by the federal power over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”

under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[104] This Court suggested in Sparrow that the following factors will be

relevant in determining whether a law of general application results in a meaningful

diminution of an Aboriginal right, giving rise to breach: (1) whether the limitation

imposed by the legislation is unreasonable; (2) whether the legislation imposes undue

hardship; and (3) whether the legislation denies the holders of the right their preferred

means of exercising the right (at p. 1112). All three factors must be considered; for

example, even if laws of general application are found to be reasonable or not to

cause undue hardship, this does not mean that there can be no infringement of

Aboriginal title. As stated in Gladstone:

Simply because one of [the Sparrow] questions is answered in the negative will not prohibit a finding by a court that a prima facie infringement has taken place; it will just be one factor for a court to consider in its determination of whether there has been a prima facie infringement. [p.43]

ARC - 86

[105] It may be predicted that laws and regulations of general application aimed

at protecting the environment or assuring the continued health of the forests of British

Columbia will usually be reasonable, not impose an undue hardship either directly or

indirectly, and not interfere with the Aboriginal group’s preferred method of

exercising their right. And it is to be hoped that Aboriginal groups and the provincial

government will work cooperatively to sustain the natural environment so important

to them both. This said, when conflicts arise, the foregoing template serves to resolve

them.

[106] Subject to these constitutional constraints, provincial laws of general

application apply to land held under Aboriginal title.

B. Does the Forest Act on its Face Apply to Aboriginal Title Land?

[107] Whether a statute of general application such as the Forest Act was

intended to apply to lands subject to Aboriginal title — the question at this point — is

always a matter of statutory interpretation.

[108] The basic rule of statutory interpretation is that “the words of an Act are

to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense

harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of

Parliament”: R. Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th ed. 2008), at p.

1.

ARC - 87

[109] Under the Forest Act, the Crown can only issue timber licences with

respect to “Crown timber”. “Crown timber” is defined as timber that is on “Crown

land”, and “Crown land” is defined as “land, whether or not it is covered by water, or

an interest in land, vested in the Crown.” (s. 1). The Crown is not empowered to

issue timber licences on “private land”, which is defined as anything that is not

Crown land. The Act is silent on Aboriginal title land, meaning that there are three

possibilities: (1) Aboriginal title land is “Crown land”; (2) Aboriginal title land is

“private land”; or (3) the Forest Act does not apply to Aboriginal title land at all. For

the purposes of this appeal, there is no practical difference between the latter two.

[110] If Aboriginal title land is “vested in the Crown”, then it falls within the

definition of “Crown land” and the timber on it is “Crown timber”.

[111] What does it mean for a person or entity to be “vested” with property? In

property law, an interest is vested when no condition or limitation stands in the way

of enjoyment. Property can be vested in possession or in interest. Property is vested in

possession where there is a present entitlement to enjoyment of the property. An

example of this is a life estate. Property is vested in interest where there is a fixed

right to taking possession in the future. A remainder interest is vested in interest but

not in possession: B. Ziff, Principles of Property Law (5th ed. 2010), at p. 245;

Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed. 2009), sub verbo “vested”.

[112] Aboriginal title confers a right to the land itself and the Crown is

obligated to justify any incursions on title. As explained above, the content of the

ARC - 88

Crown’s underlying title is limited to the fiduciary duty owed and the right to

encroach subject to justification. It would be hard to say that the Crown is presently

entitled to enjoyment of the lands in the way property that is vested in possession

would be. Similarly, although Aboriginal title can be alienated to the Crown, this

does not confer a fixed right to future enjoyment in the way property that is vested in

interest would. Rather, it would seem that Aboriginal title vests the lands in question

in the Aboriginal group.

[113] The second consideration in statutory construction is more equivocal.

Can the legislature have intended that the vast areas of the province that are

potentially subject to Aboriginal title be immune from forestry regulation? And what

about the long period of time during which land claims progress and ultimate

Aboriginal title remains uncertain? During this period, Aboriginal groups have no

legal right to manage the forest; their only right is to be consulted, and if appropriate,

accommodated with respect to the land’s use: Haida. At this stage, the Crown may

continue to manage the resource in question, but the honour of the Crown requires it

to respect the potential, but yet unproven claims.

[114] It seems clear from the historical record and the record in this case that in

this evolving context, the British Columbia legislature proceeded on the basis that

lands under claim remain “Crown land” under the Forest Act, at least until Aboriginal

title is recognized by a court or an agreement. To proceed otherwise would have left

no one in charge of the forests that cover hundreds of thousands of hectares and

ARC - 89

represent a resource of enormous value. Looked at in this very particular historical

context, it seems clear that the legislature must have intended the words “vested in the

Crown” to cover at least lands to which Aboriginal title had not yet been confirmed.

[115] I conclude that the legislature intended the Forest Act to apply to lands

under claims for Aboriginal title, up to the time title is confirmed by agreement or

court order. To hold otherwise would be to accept that the legislature intended the

forests on such lands to be wholly unregulated, and would undercut the premise on

which the duty to consult affirmed in Haida was based. Once Aboriginal title is

confirmed, however, the lands are “vested” in the Aboriginal group and the lands are

no longer Crown lands.

[116] Applied to this case, this means that as a matter of statutory construction,

the lands in question were “Crown land” under the Forest Act at the time the forestry

licences were issued. Now that title has been established, however, the beneficial

interest in the land vests in the Aboriginal group, not the Crown. The timber on it no

longer falls within the definition of “Crown timber” and the Forest Act no longer

applies. I add the obvious — it remains open to the legislature to amend the Act to

cover lands held under Aboriginal title, provided it observes applicable constitutional

restraints.

C. Is the Forest Act Ousted by the Constitution?

ARC - 90

[117] The next question is whether the provincial legislature lacks the

constitutional power to legislate with respect to forests on Aboriginal title land.

Currently, the Forest Act applies to lands under claim, but not to lands over which

Aboriginal title has been confirmed. However, the provincial legislature could amend

the Act so as to explicitly apply to lands over which title has been confirmed. This

raises the question of whether provincial forestry legislation that on its face purports

to apply to Aboriginal title lands is ousted by the Constitution.

1. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982

[118] Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 represents “the culmination of a

long and difficult struggle in both the political forum and the courts for the

constitutional recognition of [A]boriginal rights” (Sparrow, at p. 1105). It protects

Aboriginal rights against provincial and federal legislative power and provides a

framework to facilitate negotiations and reconciliation of Aboriginal interests with

those of the broader public.

[119] Section 35(1) states that existing Aboriginal rights are hereby

“recognized and affirmed”. In Sparrow, this Court held that these words must be

construed in a liberal and purposive manner. Recognition and affirmation of

Aboriginal rights constitutionally entrenches the Crown’s fiduciary obligations

towards Aboriginal peoples. While rights that are recognized and affirmed are not

absolute, s. 35 requires the Crown to reconcile its power with its duty. “[T]he best

way to achieve that reconciliation is to demand the justification of any government

ARC - 91

regulation that infringes upon or denies [A]boriginal rights” (Sparrow, at p. 1109).

Dickson C.J. and La Forest J. elaborated on this purpose as follows, at p. 1110:

The constitutional recognition afforded by the provision therefore gives a measure of control over government conduct and a strong check on legislative power. While it does not promise immunity from government regulation in a society that, in the twentieth century, is increasingly more complex, interdependent and sophisticated, and where exhaustible resources need protection and management, it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise. The government is required to bear the burden of justifying any legislation that has some negative effect on any [A]boriginal right protected under s.35(1).

[120] Where legislation affects an Aboriginal right protected by s. 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982, two inquires are required. First, does the legislation interfere

with or infringe the Aboriginal right (this was referred to as prima facie infringement

in Sparrow)? Second, if so, can the infringement be justified?

[121] A court must first examine the characteristics or incidents of the right at

stake. In the case of Aboriginal title, three relevant incidents are: (1) the right to

exclusive use and occupation of the land; (2) the right to determine the uses to which

the land is put, subject to the ultimate limit that those uses cannot destroy the ability

of the land to sustain future generations of Aboriginal peoples; and (3) the right to

enjoy the economic fruits of the land (Delgamuukw, at para. 166).

[122] Next, in order to determine whether the right is infringed by legislation, a

court must ask whether the legislation results in a meaningful diminution of the right:

Gladstone. As discussed, in Sparrow, the Court suggested that the following three

ARC - 92

factors will aid in determining whether such an infringement has occurred: (1)

whether the limitation imposed by the legislation is unreasonable; (2) whether the

legislation imposes undue hardship; and (3) whether the legislation denies the holders

of the right their preferred means of exercising the right (at p. 1112).

[123] General regulatory legislation, such as legislation aimed at managing the

forests in a way that deals with pest invasions or prevents forest fires, will often pass

the Sparrow test as it will be reasonable, not impose undue hardships, and not deny

the holder of the right their preferred means of exercising it. In such cases, no

infringement will result.

[124] General regulatory legislation, which may affect the manner in which the

Aboriginal right can be exercised, differs from legislation that assigns Aboriginal

property rights to third parties. The issuance of timber licences on Aboriginal title

land for example — a direct transfer of Aboriginal property rights to a third party —

will plainly be a meaningful diminution in the Aboriginal group’s ownership right

and will amount to an infringement that must be justified in cases where it is done

without Aboriginal consent.

[125] As discussed earlier, to justify an infringement, the Crown must

demonstrate that: (1) it complied with its procedural duty to consult with the rights

holder and accommodate the right to an appropriate extent at the stage when

infringement was contemplated; (2) the infringement is backed by a compelling and

substantial legislative objective in the public interest; and (3) the benefit to the public

ARC - 93

is proportionate to any adverse effect on the Aboriginal interest. This framework

permits a principled reconciliation of Aboriginal rights with the interests of all

Canadians.

[126] While unnecessary for the disposition of this appeal, the issue of whether

British Columbia possessed a compelling and substantial legislative objective in

issuing the cutting permits in this case was addressed by the courts below, and I offer

the following comments for the benefit of all parties going forward. I agree with the

courts below that no compelling and substantial objective existed in this case. The

trial judge found the two objectives put forward by the Province — the economic

benefits that would be realized as a result of logging in the claim area and the need to

prevent the spread of a mountain pine beetle infestation — were not supported by the

evidence. After considering the expert evidence before him, he concluded that the

proposed cutting sites were not economically viable and that they were not directed at

preventing the spread of the mountain pine beetle.

[127] Before the Court of Appeal, the Province no longer argued that the

forestry activities were undertaken to combat the mountain pine beetle, but

maintained the position that the trial judge’s findings on economic viability were

unreasonable, because unless logging was economically viable, it would not have

taken place. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument on two grounds: (1) levels

of logging must sometimes be maintained for a tenure holder to keep logging rights,

even if logging is not economically viable; and (2) the focus is the economic value of

ARC - 94

logging compared to the detrimental effects it would have on Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal

rights, not the economic viability of logging from the sole perspective of the tenure

holder. In short, the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning on

this point. I would agree. Granting rights to third parties to harvest timber on

Tsilhqot’in land is a serious infringement that will not lightly be justified. Should the

government wish to grant such harvesting rights in the future, it will be required to

establish that a compelling and substantial objective is furthered by such harvesting,

something that was not present in this case.

2. The Division of Powers

[128] The starting point, as noted, is that, as a general matter, the regulation of

forestry within the Province falls under its power over property and civil rights under

s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. To put it in constitutional terms, regulation of

forestry is in “pith and substance” a provincial matter. Thus, the Forest Act is

consistent with the division of powers unless it is ousted by a competing federal

power, even though it may incidentally affect matters under federal jurisdiction.

[129] “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” falls under federal

jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. As such, forestry on

Aboriginal title land falls under both the provincial power over forestry in the

province and the federal power over “Indians”. Thus, for constitutional purposes,

forestry on Aboriginal title land possesses a double aspect, with both levels of

government enjoying concurrent jurisdiction. Normally, such concurrent legislative

ARC - 95

power creates no conflicts — federal and provincial governments cooperate

productively in many areas of double aspect such as, for example, insolvency and

child custody. However, in cases where jurisdictional disputes arise, two doctrines

exist to resolve them.

[130] First, the doctrine of paramountcy applies where there is conflict or

inconsistency between provincial and federal law, in the sense of impossibility of

dual compliance or frustration of federal purpose. In the case of such conflict or

inconsistency, the federal law prevails. Therefore, if the application of valid

provincial legislation, such as the Forest Act, conflicts with valid federal legislation

enacted pursuant to Parliament’s power over “Indians”, the latter would trump the

former. No such inconsistency is alleged in this case.

[131] Second, the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applies where laws

enacted by one level of government impair the protected core of jurisdiction

possessed by the other level of government. Interjurisdictional immunity is premised

on the idea that since federal and provincial legislative powers under ss. 91 and 92 of

the Constitution Act, 1867 are exclusive, each level of government enjoys a basic

unassailable core of power on which the other level may not intrude. In considering

whether provincial legislation such as the Forest Act is ousted pursuant to

interjurisdictional immunity, the court must ask two questions: first, does the

provincial legislation touch on a protected core of federal power; and second, would

application of the provincial law significantly trammel or impair the federal power:

ARC - 96

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, 2010 SCC

39, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 536 (“COPA”).

[132] The trial judge held that interjurisdictional immunity rendered the

provisions of the Forest Act inapplicable to land held under Aboriginal title because

provisions authorizing management, acquisition, removal and sale of timber on such

lands affect the core of the federal power over “Indians”. He placed considerable

reliance on R. v. Morris, 2006 SCC 59, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 915, in which this Court held

that only Parliament has the power to derogate from rights conferred by a treaty

because treaty rights are within the core of the federal power over “Indians”. It

follows, the trial judge reasoned, that, since Aboriginal rights are akin to treaty rights,

the Province has no power to legislate with respect to forests on Aboriginal title land.

[133] The reasoning accepted by the trial judge is essentially as follows.

Aboriginal rights fall at the core of federal jurisdiction under s. 91(24) of the

Constitution Act, 1867. Interjurisdictional immunity applies to matters at the core of

s. 91(24). Therefore, provincial governments are constitutionally prohibited from

legislating in a way that limits Aboriginal rights. This reasoning leads to a number of

difficulties.

[134] The critical aspect of this reasoning is the proposition that Aboriginal

rights fall at the core of federal regulatory jurisdiction under s. 91(24) of the


ARC - 97

[135] The jurisprudence on whether s. 35 rights fall at the core of the federal

power to legislate with respect to “Indians” under s. 91(24) is somewhat mixed.

While no case has held that Aboriginal rights, such as Aboriginal title to land, fall at

the core of the federal power under s. 91(24), this has been stated in obiter dicta.

However, this Court has also stated in obiter dicta that provincial governments are

constitutionally permitted to infringe Aboriginal rights where such infringement is

justified pursuant to s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 – this latter proposition being

inconsistent with the reasoning accepted by the trial judge.

[136] In R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533, this Court suggested that

interjurisdictional immunity did not apply where provincial legislation conflicted with

treaty rights. Rather, the s. 35 Sparrow framework was the appropriate tool with

which to resolve the conflict:

[T]he federal and provincial governments [have the authority] within their respective legislative fields to regulate the exercise of the treaty right subject to the constitutional requirement that restraints on the exercise of the treaty right have to be justified on the basis of conservation or other compelling and substantial public objectives . . . . [para. 24]

[137] More recently however, in Morris, this Court distinguished Marshall on

the basis that the treaty right at issue in Marshall was a commercial right. The Court

in Morris went on to hold that interjurisdictional immunity prohibited any provincial

infringement of the non-commercial treaty right in that case, whether or not such an

infringement could be justified under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

ARC - 98

[138] Beyond this, the jurisprudence does not directly address the relationship

between interjurisdictional immunity and s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The

ambiguous state of the jurisprudence has created unpredictability. It is clear that

where valid federal law interferes with an Aboriginal or treaty right, the s. 35

Sparrow framework governs the law’s applicability. It is less clear, however, that it

is so where valid provincial law interferes with an Aboriginal or treaty right. The

jurisprudence leaves the following questions unanswered: does interjurisdictional

immunity prevent provincial governments from ever limiting Aboriginal rights even

if a particular infringement would be justified under the Sparrow framework?; is

provincial interference with Aboriginal rights treated differently than treaty rights?;

and, are commercial Aboriginal rights treated differently than non-commercial

Aboriginal rights? No case has addressed these questions explicitly, as I propose to

do now.

[139] As discussed, s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 imposes limits on how

both the federal and provincial governments can deal with land under Aboriginal title.

Neither level of government is permitted to legislate in a way that results in a

meaningful diminution of an Aboriginal or treaty right, unless such an infringement is

justified in the broader public interest and is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary

duty owed to the Aboriginal group. The result is to protect Aboriginal and treaty

rights while also allowing the reconciliation of Aboriginal interests with those of the

broader society.

ARC - 99

[140] What role then is left for the application of the doctrine of

interjurisdictional immunity and the idea that Aboriginal rights are at the core of the

federal power over “Indians” under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867? The

answer is none.

[141] The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity is directed to ensuring that

the two levels of government are able to operate without interference in their core

areas of exclusive jurisdiction. This goal is not implicated in cases such as this.

Aboriginal rights are a limit on both federal and provincial jurisdiction.

[142] The guarantee of Aboriginal rights in s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982,

like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, operates as a limit on federal and

provincial legislative powers. The Charter forms Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982,

and the guarantee of Aboriginal rights forms Part II. Parts I and II are sister

provisions, both operating to limit governmental powers, whether federal or

provincial. Part II Aboriginal rights, like Part I Charter rights, are held against

government — they operate to prohibit certain types of regulation which

governments could otherwise impose. These limits have nothing to do with whether

something lies at the core of the federal government’s powers.

[143] An analogy with Charter jurisprudence may illustrate the point.

Parliament enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law. However, its criminal law

power is circumscribed by s. 11 of the Charter which guarantees the right to a fair

criminal process. Just as Aboriginal rights are fundamental to Aboriginal law, the

ARC - 100

right to a fair criminal process is fundamental to criminal law. But we do not say that

the right to a fair criminal process under s. 11 falls at the core of Parliament’s

criminal law jurisdiction. Rather, it is a limit on Parliament’s criminal law

jurisdiction. If s. 11 rights were held to be at the core of Parliament’s criminal law

jurisdiction such that interjurisdictional immunity applied, the result would be absurd:

provincial breaches of s. 11 rights would be judged on a different standard than

federal breaches, with only the latter capable of being saved under s. 1 of the Charter.

This same absurdity would result if interjurisdictional immunity were applied to

Aboriginal rights.

[144] The doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity is designed to deal with

conflicts between provincial powers and federal powers; it does so by carving out

areas of exclusive jurisdiction for each level of government. But the problem in cases

such as this is not competing provincial and federal powers, but rather tension

between the right of the Aboriginal title holders to use their land as they choose and

the province which seeks to regulate it, like all other land in the province.

[145] Moreover, application of interjurisdictional immunity in this area would

create serious practical difficulties.

[146] First, application of interjurisdictional immunity would result in two

different tests for assessing the constitutionality of provincial legislation affecting

Aboriginal rights. Pursuant to Sparrow, provincial regulation is unconstitutional if it

results in a meaningful diminution of an Aboriginal right that cannot be justified

ARC - 101

pursuant to s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Pursuant to interjurisdictional

immunity, provincial regulation would be unconstitutional if it impaired an

Aboriginal right, whether or not such limitation was reasonable or justifiable. The

result would be dueling tests directed at answering the same question: how far can

provincial governments go in regulating the exercise of s. 35 Aboriginal rights?

[147] Second, in this case, applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity

to exclude provincial regulation of forests on Aboriginal title lands would produce

uneven, undesirable results and may lead to legislative vacuums. The result would be

patchwork regulation of forests — some areas of the province regulated under

provincial legislation, and other areas under federal legislation or no legislation at all.

This might make it difficult, if not impossible, to deal effectively with problems such

as pests and fires, a situation desired by neither level of government.

[148] Interjurisdictional immunity — premised on a notion that regulatory

environments can be divided into watertight jurisdictional compartments — is often

at odds with modern reality. Increasingly, as our society becomes more complex,

effective regulation requires cooperation between interlocking federal and provincial

schemes. The two levels of government possess differing tools, capacities, and

expertise, and the more flexible double aspect and paramountcy doctrines are alive to

this reality: under these doctrines, jurisdictional cooperation is encouraged up until

the point when actual conflict arises and must be resolved. Interjurisdictional

immunity, by contrast, may thwart such productive cooperation. In the case of forests

ARC - 102

on Aboriginal title land, courts would have to scrutinize provincial forestry legislation

to ensure that it did not impair the core of federal jurisdiction over “Indians” and

would also have to scrutinize any federal legislation to ensure that it did not impair

the core of the province’s power to manage the forests. It would be no answer that, as

in this case, both levels of government agree that the laws at issue should remain in

force.

[149] This Court has recently stressed the limits of interjurisdictional immunity.

“[C]onstitutional doctrine must facilitate, not undermine what this Court has called

‘co-operative federalism’” and as such “a court should favour, where possible, the

ordinary operation of statutes enacted by both levels of government” (Canadian

Western Bank v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 22, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 24 and 37

(emphasis deleted)). Because of this, interjurisdictional immunity is of “limited

application” and should be applied “with restraint” (paras. 67 and 77). These

propositions have been confirmed in more recent decisions: Marine Services

International Ltd. v. Ryan Estate, 2013 SCC 44, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 53; Canada

(Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3

S.C.R. 134.

[150] Morris, on which the trial judge relied, was decided prior to this Court’s

articulation of the modern approach to interjurisdictional immunity in Canadian

Western Bank and COPA, and so is of limited precedential value on this subject as a

result (see Marine Services, at para. 64). To the extent that Morris stands for the

ARC - 103

proposition that provincial governments are categorically barred from regulating the

exercise of Aboriginal rights, it should no longer be followed. I find that, consistent

with the statements in Sparrow and Delgamuukw, provincial regulation of general

application will apply to exercises of Aboriginal rights, including Aboriginal title

land, subject to the s. 35 infringement and justification framework. This carefully

calibrated test attempts to reconcile general legislation with Aboriginal rights in a

sensitive way as required by s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and is fairer and more

practical from a policy perspective than the blanket inapplicability imposed by the

doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

[151] For these reasons, I conclude that the doctrine of interjurisdictional

immunity should not be applied in cases where lands are held under Aboriginal title.

Rather, the s. 35 Sparrow approach should govern. Provincial laws of general

application, including the Forest Act, should apply unless they are unreasonable,

impose a hardship or deny the title holders their preferred means of exercising their

rights, and such restrictions cannot be justified pursuant to the justification framework

outlined above. The result is a balance that preserves the Aboriginal right while

permitting effective regulation of forests by the province, as required by s. 35 of the


[152] The s. 35 framework applies to exercises of both provincial and federal

power: Sparrow; Delgamuukw. As such, it provides a complete and rational way of

confining provincial legislation affecting Aboriginal title land within appropriate

ARC - 104

constitutional bounds. The issue in cases such as this is not at base one of conflict

between the federal and provincial levels of government — an issue appropriately

dealt with by the doctrines of paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity where

precedent supports this — but rather how far the provincial government can go in

regulating land that is subject to Aboriginal title or claims for Aboriginal title. The

appropriate constitutional lens through which to view the matter is s. 35 of the

Constitution Act, 1982, which directly addresses the requirement that these interests

must be respected by the government, unless the government can justify incursion on

them for a compelling purpose and in conformity with its fiduciary duty to affected

Aboriginal groups.

IX. Conclusion

[153] I would allow the appeal and grant a declaration of Aboriginal title over

the area at issue, as requested by the Tsilhqot’in. I further declare that British

Columbia breached its duty to consult owed to the Tsilhqot’in through its land use

planning and forestry authorizations.

APPENDIX PROVEN TITLE AREA – VISUAL AID

ARC - 105

ARC - 106

Appeal allowed.

Solicitors for the appellant: Rosenberg & Rosenberg, Vancouver;

Woodward & Company, Victoria.

Solicitors for the respondents Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the

Province of British Columbia and the Regional Manager of the Cariboo Forest

Region: Borden Ladner Gervais, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada: Attorney

General of Canada, Saskatoon.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec: Attorney

General of Quebec, Québec.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Manitoba: Attorney

General of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General for

Saskatchewan: Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina.

ARC - 107

Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta: Attorney

General of Alberta, Calgary.

Solicitors for the intervener the Te’mexw Treaty Association: Janes

Freedman Kyle, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the interveners the Business Council of British Columbia,

the Council of Forest Industries, the Coast Forest Products Association, the Mining

Association of British Columbia and the Association for Mineral Exploration British

Columbia: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Vancouver.

Solicitors for the intervener the Assembly of First Nations: Arvay Finlay,

Vancouver.

Solicitors for the interveners the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs of Gwass

Hlaam, Gamlaxyeltxw, Malii, Gwinuu, Haizimsque, Watakhayetsxw, Luuxhon and

Wii’litswx, on their own behalf and on behalf of all Gitanyow, and the Office of the

Wet’suwet’en Chiefs: Peter Grant & Associates, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the intervener the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group: Robert B.

Morales, Ladysmith, British Columbia.

Solicitors for the intervener the Council of the Haida Nation: White

Raven Law Corporation, Surrey, British Columbia.

ARC - 108

Solicitors for the intervener the Indigenous Bar Association in

Canada: Nahwegahbow, Corbiere Genoodmagejig, Rama, Ontario; Gowling Lafleur

Henderson, Ottawa.

Solicitors for the intervener the First Nations Summit: Mandell Pinder,

Vancouver; Morgan & Associates, West Vancouver.

Solicitors for the interveners the Tsawout First Nation, the Tsartlip First

Nation, the Snuneymuxw First Nation and the Kwakiutl First Nation: Devlin Gailus,

Victoria.

Solicitors for the interveners the Coalition of Union of British Columbia

Indian Chiefs, the Okanagan Nation Alliance and the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council

and their member communities, Okanagan, Adams Lake, Neskonlith and Splatsin

Indian Bands: Mandell Pinder, Vancouver; University of British Columbia,

Vancouver; Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops.

Solicitors for the interveners Amnesty International and the Canadian

Friends Service Committee: Stockwoods, Toronto; Paul Joffe, Saint-Lambert,

Quebec.

Solicitors for the intervener the Gitxaala Nation: Farris, Vaughan, Wills

& Murphy, Vancouver.

ARC - 109

Solicitors for the interveners the Chilko Resorts and Community

Association and the Council of Canadians: Ratcliff & Company, North Vancouver.

ARC - 110

6.1

UBC~l

Administration provided by UBCM

Funding provided by Province of B.C.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

For program Information, visit the

Funding Programs section at:

www.ubcm.ca

LGPS Secretariat

Local Government House 525 Government Street VIctoria, BC, VBV OAS

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (250)356·5134 Fax: (250) 356·5119

Local Government Program ... programs to address provincial-local government sha

GMO

Acllon: .......................................................... ..

::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::~:::::::~:::

June 25,2014 i~i~.c~;·: .. ::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::=:: Rle No .. .. t.t~."!'.qti'Q'··"-i1.6!Q:L Dot. No.: .......... ...... li»Mi;-~~--..

Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Commi~,...,cAtJ-O-Track_er_N_o.:_ .. _ .... _ ..... _ .... _ .... _ .... _ .. _-::-=_. c/o Chair Moore and Board Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H4G8

RE: Supporting Treaty Implementation- 2013/14 Operational Funding for TACs

Dear Chair and Board,

Thank you for providing a final report and financial summary for 2013/14 TAC operations. We have reviewed your submission and all reporting requirements have been met.

The final report notes a total expenditure of $67,472.00 for operational expenses for participation at the Katzie and Tsleil-Waututh tables. Based on this, a cheque in the amount of $3,000.00 will follow shortly under separate cover. This cheque represents final payment of the grant and is based on the total approved grant of $10,000.00 minus an initial payment of $7,000.00 made in June 2013.

I would like to congratulate the Metro Vancouver for responding to this opportunity to support local government participation at treaty tables.

Sincerely,

Peter Ronald Programs Officer

ARC - 111

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

6.2

Fraser Yalley Regional District

June 9, 2014

File: 3400-70/Appts

Mr. Ernie Daykin, Chair

Fraser Valley Regional District 45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, British Columbia V2P 1N6 Phone: 604~702~5000 Toll Free: 1-800-528-0061 (BC only)

Fax: 604-792-9684 website: www.fvrd.bc.ca

GM/ cM~1uN 1.6m ,s-r Actioo:. . . .. . . ...... .. ... .... . ................. ..

Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee 4th Floor, 4330 Kingsway

.. : :~t~ -~ ~:.1\rt.;~:~;:: : .. ...... .... .... ... . ....... . _, ....... i..\ .-.~...\ :i;~ . n!o Copy .• ...:·.J-.. \ \ . . . . ...... ........ -...... . File No. .. .~--%7.-:Q..~ -:F~@. Doc. No .. .. . • . ... -~·~-..... ~ZO ....... Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 CAO T r;~cl<cr No • ~P.l..':f.. ': . ':!...~.... .

Dear Chair Daykin:

Re: 2014 Fraser Valley Aboriginal Relations Committee (FVARC) Appointment to Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee

Please be advised that at the Fraser Valley Regional District Board meeting of May 27, 2014 Director Ray Boucher was appointed as the FVARC representative to the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee.

Director Boucher's contact information is:

Director Ray Boucher 10125 Mountainview Road Mission, BC V2V 4J1 Tel: 604-855-8581 Email: [email protected]

Mayor Bruce Banman of the City of Abbotsford has been re-elected as chair of the FVARC for the year 2014. His email address is [email protected].

Yours truly,

Barclay Pitkethly, Director of Regional Programs

ARC - 112

KTHANDI

Text Box

fiRST NATIONS SUMMIT

Regional Community to Community Forum

Administration provided by UBCM and First Nations

Summit

Funding provided by the Ministry of Community,

Sport & Cultural Development and

Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development

Canada

Please direct all correspondence to:

Local Government House 525 Government Street Victoria, BC, VBV OAB

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (250) 356-5134

Fax: (250) 356-5119

May 16, 2014

Chair Moore and Board Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC VSH 4G8

RE: 2014/15 (Spring) Regional Community to Community Forum -Funding Approval


Thank you for submitting an application for the 2014/15 (Spring) Community to Community (C2C) forum program. \Ve have reviewed all submissions and, on behalf of the First Nations Summit and Union of BC Municipalities, are pleased to advise you that we have approved your application in the amount of $4,400.00.

A cheque in the amount of $2,200.00, or 50% of the total approved amount, will follow shortly. The remainder of the grant will be available once we have received the final report and financial summary for your event(s).

Funding for this program is provided by the federal and provincial governments and is administered by the UBCM and First Nations Summit. The general Terms & Conditions of this grant are attached. In addition, in order to satisfy the terms of our contribution agreements, we have the following requirements:

1) The funding is to be used solely for the purpose of organizing and holding a Community to Community Forum(s);

2) The event(s) must be held before March 31, 2015;

3) The event(s) must include participation by elected officials from both the local government and First Nation.

4) The grant funds must be matched in cash or in-kind;

5) The final report form, available on the UBCM and First Nation Summit websites, must be completed and submitted to UBCM, with all required attachments, within 30 days of the completion of your event;

6) Any unused funds must be returned to UBCM within 30 days following the event.

The Guide to Community to Community Forums in British Colu.mbia was published in 2007 and is available to assist applicants in developing events

6.3

ARC - 113

in their communities. The Guide is available on the UBC:tv1 and First Nations Summit website.

An information brochure is attached to this letter. This brochure describes the Regional Community to Community Forum program and we ask that your distribute copies of this brochure at your event(s).

We congratulate you for responding to this opportunity to build relations with neighbouring First Nations and/ or local governments and wish you a very successful event.

If you have any questions, please contact Local Government Program Services at (250) 356-5134 or [email protected]

Sincerely,

·~ Peter Ronald Programs Officer

cc: Marino Piombini, Aboriginal Relations Supervisor, Metro Vancouver

Enclosures (2)

ARC - 114

Local Government Program Services

General Funding Terms & Conditions

The purpose of these Terms and Conditions is to provide basic information on the administration of Local Government Program Services {LGPS) grants. For specific information regarding the terms and conditions of

each funding program, please refer to the Program & Application Guide.

1. Definitions

•

•

• •

•

•

Approved Applicant- In general, LGPS grants are awarded to local governments (regional districts and municipalities). However, under some programs, other organizations, such as First Nations and aboriginal organizations or boards of education, can be the approved applicant. The approved applicant is the primary contact for UBCM and is responsible for overall grant management.

Approved Partner(s)- Are organizations that contribute directly to the approved project, are identified in the application and are approved by UBCM. Possible partners include, but are not limited to, boards of education, health authorities, First Nations or aboriginal organizations, non-profit organizations and local governments (other than the applicant).

Approved Project- Is the activity or activities described in the application and approved by UBCM .

Cash Expenditures- Are direct costs properly and reasonably incurred and paid for with money by the approved applicant or approved project partners for the development or implementation of the approved project. For example, catering and consultant fees can be cash expenditures.

In-Kind Expenditures- Are the use of resources of the approved applicant or approved project partner for the development or implementation of the approved project. For example, the use of meeting rooms owned by the applicant or approved partner can be an in-kind expenditure.

Program & Application Guides- Are the application and program materials prepared by UBCM to describe the program and assist applicants in completing and submitting an application. All Program & Application Guides are available at www.ubcm.ca.

2. Eligible & Ineligible Costs

Eligible costs, including cash and in-kind expenditures, are direct costs properly and reasonably incurred by the approved applicant or approved partners in the development or implementation of the approved project. To be eligible, these costs must be outlined in the detailed budget submitted by the approved applicant as part of the application process and be approved by UBCM. Requests to change the budget must be made to UBCM, in writing, by the approved applicant (see below). Please see the Program & Application Guide for specific notes regarding eligible and ineligible costs.

3. Post-Approval Terms

Notice of Approval

UBCM will inform approved applicants by letter and a specified percentage of the approved grant amount will be forwarded upon approval. The balance will be paid on satisfactory completion of the project and receipt of all final reporting requirements.

Applicant Responsibilities

LGPS grants are awarded to approved applicants. When collaborative projects are undertaken, the approved applicant remains the primary organization responsible for the grant. Due to this, the approved applicant is the primary contact for UBCM and is responsible for:

•

•

Ensuring that approved activities are undertaken as outlined in the approved application and within the required timeline,

Providing proper fiscal management of the grant and approved project (see below), and

Local Government Proqram Services -General Fundina Terms & Conditions (fvlav 2011) Paqe 1/2

ARC - 115

• Submitting progress and/or final reports, using UBCM forms where available, as required by the Program & Application Guide (see below).

Accounting Records

Acceptable accounting records must be kept that clearly disclose the nature and amounts of cash and in-kind expenditures incurred during the development or implementation of the approved project. Financial summaries are required to be submitted as part of the final report and must be signed by a representative of the approved applicant (or as required in the Program & Application Guide). In all cases, the final project expenditure must be net of any rebates (such as HST) that the approved applicant or approved partner is eligible to receive.

Changes to or Cancellation of Approved Project

Approved applicants need to advise UBCM, in writing, of any significant variation from the approved project as described in the approved application, including any major changes to:

• Start or end dates • Project purpose, goals, outcomes or milestones

• Cash and in-kind expenditures or matching funds (when required)

• Project partners

UBCM's approval may be required in advance for such changes. If an approved project is cancelled, the approved applicant is responsible for ensuring any grant monies that have been advanced are returned to UBCM within 30 days, or as outlined in the Program & Application Guide.

4. Reporting Requirements

Submission of Reports

Approved applicants are required to submit progress and final reports as outlined in the Program & Application Guide. When UBCM forms are available, they are required to be used. Please note the following when submitting a report:

•

•

• • • •

When completing a UBCM report form please ensure that each question is answered and that all attachments are complete. Follow any sample templates that UBCM provides.

When a report form is not required, please ensure that each required component, as outlined in the Program & Application Guide, is addressed in your report and that all attachments are complete.

Unless specifically requested, please do not bind reports or submit in binders or folders .

When submitting electronically, submit all documents as Word or PDF files .

All digital photos or images should be submitted, by e-mail or on CD, as JPEG files .

When you are ready to submit your report, please e-mail it directly to [email protected] or mail/fax it to Local Government House: 525 Government Street, Victoria, BC, VBV OAB or Fax: (250) 356-5119

Extensions and Outstanding Reports

In order for an approved project to continue past the approved end date- or for a final report to be submitted after the established deadline- approved applicants must contact LGPS and request and be granted permission for an extension.

Approved applicants that do not request extensions and have outstanding reports may forfeit the final payment of their grant and may not be eligible to apply to future LGPS programs until reports are received.

5. Recognition of Funding and Funders

Approved applicants should contact UBCM for more information on recognizing funding and for information on the appropriate use of logos. Please contact Paul Taylor, Relationships & Communications Advisor, at (250) 356-2938 or [email protected].

Local Government Program Services- General Funding Terms & Conditions (May 2011) Page 2/2 ARC - 116

"It is the age-old concept of give

and take, compromise, respectfulness

and treating each other as equals

that creates the framework for

successful relationships and countless

opportunities for future partnerships."

-Participant

Questions?

If you have any questions about applying

for a Regional Community to Community

Forum, please contact UBCM:

Local Government Program Services

Union of BC Municipalities

Phone: {250) 356-5134

E-mal: [email protected]

Information on the

Regional

Community to

Community Forum

Program

FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT

~~~~:.

ARC - 117

"Each event lessens the distance between

the communities, which physically are

very near to each other, but sometimes

socially are very distant."

- Participant

Description

A regional Community to Community

(C2C) Forum is a jointly organized meeting

that brings together First Nation and local

government elected officials and other

community leaders.

Background

Since 1999, with continued support from

the provincial Ministry of Community,


Aboriginal Affairs & Northern

Development Canada, more than 340

Regional C2C Forums have been held in

communities across the province.

This year, UBCM and the FNS have

received funding for the purpose of

providing modest grants to First Nation

and local government applicants.

Purpose

The goal of a regional C2C Forum is to

increase understanding and to improve

overall relations between First Nations

and local governments. Dialogue topics

may include economic development, land

use planning, service delivery or other

areas of common interest.

Forum Objectives

o Educating and informing participants

about relationships between First

Nations and local governments

o Providing a forum for dialogue on a

specific concern or topical issue-

o Strengthening relationships and

fostering cooperation by building

stronger links between First Nations

and local governments

o Determining opportunities for future

collaboration and joint action.

Who is eligible?

Any local government (municipality or

regional district) or First Nation

government (Band or Tribal Council) may

apply for funding for a regional C2C

Forum. First time and repeat applicants

are eligible.

Approval Process

The FNS and UBCM hope to encourage as

many C2C forums as possible across the

province, within the confines of the

available funding. Each year more

applications are received and, if need be,

steps will be taken to ensure funds are

spread as far as possible:

Consolidation -In some cases, where

several forums are proposed in the same

region, we may ask that the groups

combine efforts and hold one forum for

that region.

Regional Equity- Consideration will be

given to ensuring regional equity in the

allocation of funds.

Advice- Where requested, UBCM and FNS

will provide advice to applicants on their

application and event.

"I cannot recall being involved in anything

more significant in my career. Building

peoples' futures rather than building

'things' is much more satisfying".

-Participant

ARC - 118

Aboriginal Relations

Legal and Legislative Services

KATZIE FIRST NATION-METRO VANCOUVER

COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY FORUM

FINAL REPORT

JULY 16, 2014

Submitted to UBCM on August 12, 2014

6.4

ARC - 119

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

C2C FORUM INVITATIONS

Join us at the Katzie - Metro Vancouver Co11munity to Community Forum Share Information and Ideas ... Build Relationships

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Time: 4:00pm to 7:00pm Formal program at 4:00 pm Buffet dinner at 5:30 pm

Location: South Bonson Community Centre 10932 Bamston View Road, Pitt Meadows

Parking: Limited parking is availlble behind the Community Centre. Print and display the attached temporary parking pass in your vehicle. Please ride share if possible.

Plea$e RSVP by June 13, 2014 to [email protected]

Metro Vancouver Open House from 2 pm to 4 pm at the same location. We encourage you to drop-in to view Metro Vancouver~ displays and to meet with Katzie community members.

-------- metrovancouver ~..-sERVIcEs AND SOlUTIONS FOR A UVAILE REGION ~

ARC - 120

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

OPEN HOUSE NOTIFICATION

Join us to ta lk with Met ro Vancouver staff ... enjoy d isplays and videos ... a nd participate in activities that

showcase the importa nt services Metro Vancouver p rovides for the Region.

Metro Van cower iE> a partnership o f 22 municipalities, one Elector.al Area a n rl onP. TrP-"'ty Fi~t NAtion thAt t'!OIIAhnn;~tivP.Jy pl;m~ fnr aM t'IF!IivP.rs regional-scale services. Its core services are drinking water, w astewater

treatment and solid waste management

Metro Vancouver also regulates air quality, p lans for urban growth, manages a regional parks syste m and provides affordable hous ing.

Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Time : DROP IN fro m 2 :00 pm t o 4 :00 pm

location : South Bonson Community Centre 10932 Barnston View Road Pitt Meadows

-- metrovancouver SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION ";;#

ARC - 121

PREAMBLE

The purpose of this report is to provide the Union of British Columbia Municipalities with a summary of the

activities of the Community to Community Forum held between Katzie First Nation and Metro Vancouver. The

intent of the Forum was to bring Katzie First Nation and local government community leaders together to discuss

common goals and opportunities.

OBJECTIVE

Katzie First Nation and Metro Vancouver co-hosted a Community to Community (C2C) Forum on July 16, 2014 at

the South Bonson Community Centre in Pitt Meadows. The C2C Forum achieved its objectives, as described in the

funding proposal, of enhancing open communication. The Forum provided an opportunity for dialogue on issues of

mutual interest and promoted relationship building between communities.

The main objectives of the forum were to:

Get to know one another

Provide a forum for open dialogue and information sharing

Strengthen relationships and build stronger links between Katzie First Nation and local governments

Increase Metro Vancouver’s understanding of Katzie’s post-treaty aspirations

Increase Katzie’s understanding of Metro Vancouver’s governance structure and regional functions

Gain insight into each community’s interests

Discuss the future relationship between Metro Vancouver and Katzie post-treaty

Set the framework for further discussions and meetings

Some of the key elements that contributed to the success of this event are summarized below:

The C2C Forum agenda was developed by Metro Vancouver in close collaboration with Katzie through a number of meetings and discussions at the Katzie treaty table.

The Forum focused on the Katzie First Nation which is one of 11 First Nations located within the Metro Vancouver region. This one-on-one interaction provided local government representatives with an opportunity to personalize their individual and respective relationships with Katzie. At the event, Katzie shared information about its history, culture, heritage, and participation in treaty negotiations.

Metro Vancouver and Katzie First Nation members shared a meal and enjoyed Katzie’s youth drummers who opened the C2C forum with a traditional song. Sharing the meal gave the participants the further opportunity to “break bread” and have more informal discussions.

Metro Vancouver staff prepared a number of visual displays which were set up outside of the banquet room which prompted further dialogue among the participants.

ARC - 122

PARTICIPANTS

Even though the event was held on an unusually hot summer’s day, 89 participants attended the Katzie-Metro

Vancouver Community to Community Forum. The C2C Forum involved the Katzie First Nation, its elected officials, staff

and community representatives, as well as elected local government officials, including members of the Aboriginal

Relations Committee, municipal and regional district staff, and representatives from the federal and provincial

governments responsible for negotiating treaties. The forum had broad attendance from Katzie community, including

children, youth and elders.

KATZIE FIRST NATION (33)

Susan Miller , Chief Rick Bailey, Councillor Peter James, Councillor Robin Green, Councillor Debbie Miller, Chief Negotiator Cyril Pierre Jim DeHart Tom Blackbird Loraine Schwart Angelina Mavis Angeline Donovan Helen Johnson Sadie Colleen Pierre Gail Florence Rachel Florence Alissa Bailey Eileen Pierre Francis Pierre Krystal Wesley Guibouche Denis Vailancourt Bill Cheryl Power Jolene Rizzalli John Burns Dustin Randy R. Fran Sylvester Steven Sylvester Jason Segwen Irv Lenz

ARC - 123

METRO VANCOUVER ABORIGINAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (12)

Andrea Reimer, Director Ernie Daykin, Director Barbara Steele, Director Ralph Drew, Director Lorne Lewis, Director (SCRD observer) Ray Boucher, Director (FVRD observer) Ted Schaffer, Mayor Stephen Ferguson, Director Deb Walters, Director Alan Nixon, Councillor Mary-Ann Booth, Councillor Brent Asmundson, Councillor

METRO VANCOUVER (16)

Carol Mason, Commissioner/ CAO Heather McNell, Division Manager, Regional Planning Andrew Marr, Director, Solid Waste Planning Alicia Williams, Communications & Education Coordinator Jarrid Jenkins, LSCR Operations Assistant Bonnie Blue, Regional Planner II Wendy DaDalt, Division Manager, Parks East Area Derek Jennejohn, Lead, Senior Engineer Jane Porter, Project Coordinator, External Relations Agnes Rosicki, Senior Policy Analyst, Legal and Legislative Services Ralph Hildebrand, General Manager, Legal and Legislative Services Tanya McMaster, Administrative Assistant Kiren Thandi, Administrative Assistant Marino Piombini, Senior Planner, Legal and Legislative Services Ann Rowan, Sustainability Strategist, Policy, Planning and Environment Ed von Euw, Senior Engineer, Water Services

NEIGHBOURING MUNICIPALITIES (10)

City of Pitt Meadows Lorna Jones, Director of HR/Communications Mark Roberts, Director of Finance & Facilities Lori Graham, Acting CEO Bruce Bell, Councillor Janis Elkerton, Councillor Tracy Miyashita, Councillor Gwen O'Connell, Councillor

ARC - 124

District of Maple Ridge Cheryl Ashlie, Councillor Michael Morden, Councillor Corisa Bell, Councillor

FRASER VALLEY ABORIGINAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (1)

Jeff Jewell, Councillor

MUNICIPAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL RELATIONS (4)

Kim Grout, City of Pitt Meadows Paul Gill, District of Maple Ridge Corien Speaker, District of Squamish Barclay Pitkethly, Fraser Valley Regional District

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (2)

Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Wendy Hutchinson, Negotiator Brad Vaillancourt, Assistant Negotiator

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT (5)

Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Corinne Shepheard, Negotiator Cory Herrera, Senior Negotiator Yvette Lizee, Regional Manager Paul Carey, Senior Resource Coordination Officer

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Keith Anderson, Manager

BC TREATY COMMISSION (1)

Dan Smith, Commissioner

Union of BC Municipalities, First Nations Relations Committee (3)

Murry Krause, Councillor Angela Turner, Policy Analyst Bhar Sihota, Policy Analyst

RCMP (2)

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Dan Malo, Lower Mainland District Commander Ridge Meadows Dan Splinter, Inspector

ARC - 125

Event Overview

Metro Vancouver Open House

2:00 PM – 4:00 PM Metro Vancouver Open House for the Katzie Community

Metro Vancouver Staff in Attendance Showcasing Various Displays and Educational Materials

Community to Community Forum

3:30 PM – 4:20 PM Registration

4:20 PM – 4:45 PM Opening and Welcome

Opening Comments: Ralph Hildebrand, Metro Vancouver

Welcome: Carol Mason, Commissioner/CAO, Metro Vancouver

Welcome: Chief Susan Miller, Katzie First Nation

Traditional Welcome: Drummers

4:45 PM – 5:45 PM Speakers:

Director Ernie Daykin: The Future Relationship between Katzie and Metro Vancouver

Debbie Miller: Katzie 101 and Katzie Treaty 101

Cory Herrera/Wendy Hutchinson: BC/Canada Perspective on the Katzie Treaty

5:45 PM – 5:50 PM Closing Remarks: Ralph Hildebrand

5:50 PM – 7:00 PM Buffet Dinner and Socializing

7:00 PM – 7:05 PM Closing

ARC - 126

METRO VANCOUVER OPEN HOUSE

St ation

Regional

Planning

Regional Parks

Air Quality

Water

Liquid Waste

Solid Waste

MV General

Kat zie-MV Community to Community Forum: Wednesday Ju ly 16, South Bonson Community Centre, Pitt Meadows

Open House- 2:00 pm to 4 :00 pm

Poster Activity Laptop I iPad Staff Additional Mat erials • • Easels (everyone to bring business cards)

2 posters Regional t rivia N/ A Heat her McNeil Heat her will supply:

Ann Rowan - Regional Growth Strategies - Reference binder w ith 'maps of the

month' - Table top maps

2 parks TBC- Plinko Game iPad: Wendy DaDalt Wendy will supply: 2 ETF Parks Navigator Bonnie Blue - Check it out 1 map - Selection of park brochures

- Stewardship News - ETF f lyer - ETF tablet op map (Jane has this)

2 posters Air Quality Game Lapt op: Derek Jennejohn Derek w ill supply: -AirMap.ca - Caring for the Air reports 2013 & 2014 -Ciearairbc.ca - Met ro Vancouver Fact Sheets for:

Particulate matter; Ozone; Nitrogen oxides; Sulphur dioxide; Air Quality Monitoring; Greenhouse gases; Short-lived climate forcers

1 poster Water Cycle Game N/A Jarrid Jenkins Judy will supply: 1 map - SCFP brochure

- Coquit lam UV t reat ment facility brochure - Watershed tour info bookmark - Lawn sprinkling regs? Magnet s?

1 poster Game N/A Ed von Euw Judy will supply: 1 map - 'what happens when I fl ush' brochure 1 100 yr - LGWWTP brochure

- LWM P - 100 year GVS&DD magnets

2 posters TBC Andrew Marr TBC- Alicia to supply? Alicia Wil liams - WTE flier

2 agenda Video: Services + 100 yr 40" Monitor Judy will supply: 2 directional GVS&DD anniversary iPad: web access - Board Strategic Plan

ARC - 127

COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY FORUM HIGHLIGHTS

Open House

At the request of Katzie, Metro Vancouver organized an Open House to inform Katzie members about some of the

regional services provided by Metro Vancouver: air, water, liquid waste, solid waste, parks and planning. The Open

House offered a unique opportunity for Katzie members to drop-in to view information, refer to maps, play games that

had been set up for this event and ask questions of Metro Vancouver staff in a friendly and informal environment.

14 Metro Vancouver staff from various departments including Water Services, Liquid Waste Services, Solid Waste

Services, and Policy, Planning and Environment were on hand to provide explanations of the services and answer

questions posed by Katzie members and elected officials on Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee, the

neighbouring municipalities of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, and from neighbouring regional districts: Fraser Valley

and Squamish-Lillooet.

The Open House portion of the event took place in the early afternoon prior to the formal C2C Forum program.

Community to Community Forum

The C2C Forum began with brief presentations and opening remarks from Katzie, Metro Vancouver. The C2C Forum

provided ample opportunity for welcoming comments. Carol Mason, Metro Vancouver CAO/Commissioner, delivered

opening remarks on behalf of the Metro Vancouver Board and welcomed everyone to Metro Vancouver’s first

Community to Community Forum. She thanked Katzie for allowing the participants to gather within its traditional

territory for this event.

Chief Susan Miller, Katzie First Nation, welcomed all attendees to Katzie’s traditional territory, singling out a group of

Katzie youth that had performed a drumming welcome that led participants into the banquet hall at the start of the

Forum, and the Katzie elders, one of whom offered a prayer before the Forum dinner. Chief Miller spoke about the

significant changes that Katzie has been going through and the readiness of the entire community to develop a plan for

the future and learn what it really means to be Katzie.

Director Ernie Daykin, Chair of the Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee, also welcomed everyone to the

South Bonson Community Center and expressed appreciation to all the participants in the Forum. Director Daykin

offered his perspective on the future relationship between Katzie and Metro Vancouver. He spoke of the importance of

having good neighbour-to-neighbour relationships with Katzie First Nation. He highlighted the need to start building and

fostering relationships now in order to ensure successful treaty implementation in the future.

He noted that Metro Vancouver’s goal and commitments are to work proactively with Katzie to create and exercise a

good working relationship based on respect, open and constructive dialogue, and recognition of mutual interests. He

stated that the regional district looks forward to holding a servicing agreement workshop with Katzie before the end of

2014.

Debbie Miller, Chief Negotiator for Katzie, provided the invited guests with two PowerPoint presentations: one on

“Katzie 101” and the other on “Katzie Treaty 101”. The first presentation focused on the Katzie people, history,

resources harvested, the impacts of development over the years on Katzie’s territory, and the importance of the Upper

Pitt Watershed to the First Nation. Ms. Miller’s presentation provided valuable insights into the geography,

archaeological heritage, and socio-cultural context of the Katzie First Nation.

ARC - 128

Ms. Miller’s second presentation began with the question: “Why Achieve a Treaty?” She spoke on the importance of

preserving Katzie’s cultural heritage. She quoted Katzie’s late Grand Chief Peter James who stated:

“Some people don’t even know that Katzie exist and, some that do, don’t know a lot about us. But if they come

and we share a little bit of our culture and traditions with them – share our way of life as we live it today and as

we lived it in the past, they would have a better understanding of us…the beliefs that we have in our culture and

tradition.”

Members of the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee and the Municipal Technical Advisory Committee

(MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations appreciated the opportunity to sit at one table with Katzie community members and to

hear directly from the Katzie Chief and Chief Negotiator about the importance of positive relationships with

neighbouring municipalities and learn more about Katzie’s history and culture.

Finally, the treaty negotiators for BC and Canada brought greetings from their respective governments and thanked

Metro Vancouver and Katzie for allowing them to participate in the Forum. They were appreciative of the turnout and

the achievement of having a Community to Community Forum at a time when the First Nation is reportedly close to

completing an Agreement-in-Principle, a blueprint of what the Final Agreement (Treaty) might look like.

Dinner followed the speeches and presentations and the Katzie youth drummers then performed one final song before

the Forum concluded.

NEXT STEPS

At the Forum, Metro Vancouver and Katzie, in the spirit of continued open dialogue, committed to setting up a

workshop on servicing agreements by the end of 2014. The intention is to hold the workshop as part of an MTAC

meeting to be held on December 10, 2014. The purpose of the workshop between MTAC members and Katzie First

Nation would be to identify key issues and challenges in negotiating service agreements between local government and

the First Nation.

The workshop would focus on the identification of Katzie’s servicing needs as part of the treaty implementation stage,

Metro Vancouver and local government policies and procedures and lessons learned from previous experiences in the

Metro Vancouver region.

It should be noted that apart from the intergovernmental relationships that currently exist, Metro Vancouver and Katzie

have a relationship at the treaty table which will also play an important role in the post-treaty environment.

Metro Vancouver and Katzie organized a successful and informative Forum. Metro Vancouver staff, encouraged by the

positive feedback received from the participants, will endeavour to have a Community to Community Forum each year

with a different First Nation or First Nations participating.

The C2C forum provided an opportunity to meet in a relaxed, friendly atmosphere and helped to build a better

understanding among the communities. At this event, community leaders were able to get to know each other better

and initiate dialogue on issues of mutual interest and concern. Metro Vancouver hopes that a number of meetings

between Katzie and local government communities will be set up in the near future to continue discussions initiated at

the Forum and discuss opportunities for further collaboration.

ARC - 129

A COMPILATION OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM FORUM PARTICIPANTS

“Thank you so much for putting together a successful and informative forum yesterday with our Katzie neighbours.”

“I learned a lot listening to the presentation on Katzie 101 and Katzie Treaty 101 and I think the dinner afterwards was

useful in providing an informal setting to chat. The young Katzie women at our table were very informative and chatty and seemed to be enjoying the evening out and everyone else had a chance to connect.”

“The inclusion of kids was great at the open house and the evening presentation and the singers/drummers were really impressive. I am attended many First Nation functions when I worked at the David Suzuki Foundation and this was a very comfortable and familiar situation – I enjoy learning from my neighbours about their and our history and geography.”

“I’d like to pay a compliment to the excellent job that staff did with the C2C. It was relaxed and informative and I got to

speak with a number of the Katzie people. A great first step and I’m pleased to have been part of it. Thanks to you and all

the staff involved.”

“Thanks for the opportunity to participate. It was a great afternoon/ evening. You did a fabulous job, and I think everyone I spoke with had nothing but kudos to impart. Well done.” “I personally really enjoyed the night, the presentations and the conversation at my table. All good. I think having some diverse perspectives at the table was great.” “In my 22 years here, I've had many interactions with First Nations, and I am happy to say that our C2C was by far the most positive and useful towards building a respective relationship. I especially liked chatting with the elders at the open house, particularly with Ceril Pierre - wow that is one awesome individual. We should certainly do more of this.”

ARC - 130

FINANCIAL SUMMARY OF EVENT EXPENDITURES

Item Budget Actual

Dinner Catering $3,540 $3,762

Open House Catering $0 $446

Forum USBs for Attendees $0 $945

Katzie First Nation Speaker Fee $0 $100

Linens Rental $0 $78

Event Organization (invitations, agendas, staff time, etc.) $2,000 $2,500

Materials and Supplies $300 $60

Final Report Production $1,000 $500

Professional Audio Visual Services $0 $400

Recording Services $1,000 $0

Venue Rental $900 $1,165

Contingency $140 $0

TOTALS $8,880 $9,956

Total Approved Budgeted Expenditures $8,880

Total Expense Incurred

Funding Received to Date (May 2014)

$9,956

$2,200

UBCM 50% of Approved Budgeted Expense

UBCM 50% of Expense Incurred Minus $2,200

$4,440

$2,240

Balance Payable to Metro Vancouver $2,240

ARC - 131

OPEN HOUSE PHOTOS

South Bonson Community Centre

Metro Vancouver staff

Metro Vancouver Staff

Open House attendees



ARC - 132

C2C FORUM PHOTOS

Katzie First Nation Traditional

Welcome


Welcome


Welcome

Ralph Hildebrand, MC

Carol Mason, Commissioner/CAO

Susan Miller, Chief

ARC - 133

C2C FORUM PHOTOS

Ernie Daykin, Director

Formal Program attendees

Debbie Miller, Chief Negotiator –

Katzie First Nation


Wendy Hutchinson, Negotiator

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern

Development Canada

Cory Herrera, Negotiator – Ministry

of Aboriginal Relations and

Reconciliation

ARC - 134

C2C FORUM PHOTOS







ARC - 135

MULTIMEDIA

Two members of Metro Vancouver’s multimedia division filmed both the Open House and formal program at the Katzie

– Metro Vancouver Community to Community Forum. A video from the event will soon be available on the Metro

Vancouver website (http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/aboriginal/Pages/default.aspx)

MEMORY STICKS

To further promote relationship building and disseminate knowledge about Katzie First Nation and Metro Vancouver,

each attendee of the formal program was given a memory stick containing relevant Katzie – Metro Vancouver

Community to Community Forum links and resources.

These documents included:

A Path Forward: A Resources Guide to Support Treaty First Nation, Regional District and Local Government

Collaboration and Planning (2012)

Katzie First Nation Strategic Plan (2014)

Katzie Statement of Intent Map

Metro Vancouver’s Profile of First Nations (2014)

Metro Vancouver Board Strategic Plan

Metro Vancouver Corporate Climate Action Plan (2010)

Metro Vancouver Drinking Water Management Plan (2011)

ARC - 136

http://www.metrovancouver.org/region/aboriginal/Pages/default.aspx

Metro Vancouver Ecological Health Action Plan (2011)

Metro Vancouver Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan (2011)

Metro Vancouver Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan (2010)

Metro Vancouver Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan (2010)

Metro Vancouver Affordable Housing Strategy (2007)

Metro Vancouver Regional Food System Strategy (2011)

Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (2010)

Metro Vancouver Regional Parks Plan (2011)

CONCLUSION

We wish to thank the UBCM for providing partial funding for this important event. Based on the comments and

feedback we have received following the event, we believe that the first Katzie First Nation-Metro Vancouver C2C Forum

was a success and the participants gained a better understanding of both the First Nation and the regional district.

ARC - 137

METRO VANCOUVER

A BORIG INAL REL ATIONS – LEGAL AND LEG ISL ATIV E SERV ICES

ARC - 138

6.5

UBC~l

FIRST NATIONS SUMMIT

Regional Community to Community Forum

Administration provided by UBCM and First Nations

Summit

Funding provided by the Ministry of Community,


Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development

Canada

Please direct all correspondence to:

Local Government House 525 Government Street Victoria, BC, V8V OA8

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (250) 356-2947

Fax: (250) 356-5119

August 20, 2014

Chair Moore and Board Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC VSH 4G8

RE: Completion of 2014/15 (Spring) Community to Community Forum


Thank you for submitting the final report and financial summary for Metro Vancouver's Community to Community Forum event held on July 16, 2014.

It is clear the event achieved the goals of the Regional Community to Community Forum Program and the objectives of the participants, including the Katzie First Nation, City of Pitt Meadows, and District of Maple Ridge.

The final report notes a total eligible expenditure of $9,956.00. Based on this, a cheque in the amount of $2,200.00 will be issued shortly under separate cover. This cheque represents final payment of the grant and is based on 50% of the eligible expenditures to a maximum approved grant of $4,400.00, minus the initial payment of $2,200.00 made in May 2014.

On behalf of the Union of BC Municipalities and the First Nations Summit, I would like to congratulate Metro Vancouver on the success of your event and hope that you will consider applying under this program again in the future.

Peter Ronald Programs Officer

cc: Marino Piombini, Supervisor, Aboriginal Relations, Metro Vancouver

ARC - 139

1

New Relationship

Lands and Resources and Economic Development Initiatives

Second Quarter: 2014 UPDATED: June 30, 2014

Sector Region Partners Description Contacts

Land & Resource Agreements April 9

Northwest ABR, Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, Metlakatla First Nation, Aurora LNG, Woodside Petroleum Ltd.

Revenue sharing agreements signed between BC, Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, Aurora LNG and Woodside. The agreements share a portion of government revenues related to the Grassy Point lands near Pr. Rupert identified as the potential site for new LNG export facilities.

Contact: ABR website via B.C. and First Nations sign first LNG revenue-sharing agreements.

Business & Investment April 14

South Interior

MTI, District of Barriere, Simpcw First Nation

B.C. government officially transferred land on the site of the former Tolko Industries Ltd. mill to the District of Barriere and the Simpcw First Nation. This remediated land will provide a land base for new industry and new jobs for the region. Total Commitment: $4.6 million

Contact: MTI via the Transportation Projects BC webpage.

Energy May 1

ABR, Fort Nelson First Nation The Province and Fort Nelson First Nation agreed on a new path for their relationship based on a mutual objective to have the most environmentally responsible LNG industry in the world and for FNs to be partners and key players in BC’s LNG strategy. Senior government officials will work with the FN to make decisions that will ensure timely progress toward achieving a safe, sustainable LNG industry.

Contact: via FLNR Land Tenures Branch Website.

Conservation May 5

Cariboo-Chilcotin

FLNR, First Nations, Stakeholders

The public, First Nations and natural resource stakeholders are invited to submit their feedback on a proposed Elk Management Plan for the Cariboo Region. The plan will balance the traditional needs of First Nations with the economic and social interests of local communities and stakeholders, while protecting and managing wildlife resources.

Contact: FLNR via the Elk in the Cariboo-Chilcotin: Public Consultation webpage.

Energy May 6

North ABR, Tahltan Central Council, AltaGas Renewable Energy Inc.

Two BC First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund Revenue Sharing Agreements allow the Tahltan to share revenues from run-of-the-river projects for ongoing economic development initiatives. The Tahltan will receive a share of water rentals and land rents charged by the Province for licences issued to power developer AltaGas Renewable Energy.

Contact: MARR via First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund webpage.

6.6

ARC - 140

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2014PREM0030-000440.pdf



http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/tranprojectsbc/


http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/land_tenures/index.html


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/public-consultation/elk/



http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/economic/fncebf.html



2


Land & Resource Agreements May 6

North ABR, Tahltan Central Council, Tahltan Socio-Economic Working Group (TSCWG), BC Hydro

BC Government funding to support the continuing operation of the Tahltan Socio-Economic Working Group (TSCWG), established in 2011 under the Northwest Transmission Line (NTL) Negotiation Framework Agreement. The establishment of the TSCWG fulfilled the Province’s commitment under the NTL Negotiation Framework Agreement to develop a government-to-government forum to address social and cultural challenges arising out of resource development on Tahltan territory. Total commitment: $550,000

Contact: Access the Tahltan Central Council Socio-Cultural Working Group report.


South Interior

ABR, Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council (Lytton, Skupah, Oregon Jack Creek, Boothroyd, Spuzzum First Nations), Highland Valley Copper Mine

Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council (NNTC) Land and Resource Decision Making Pilot Agreement creates a shared decision-making board that will make recommendations and support more collaborative engagement on land and resource use decisions. The first area of focus will be directed at mining and forestry decisions. The pilot will also develop a process that will focus on early collaboration between the NNTC and industry proponents. Total commitment: $550,000

Contact: ABR Website via Economic and Community Development Agreements webpage.


Northwest ABR, MEM, Huckleberry Mines Ltd., Cheslatta Carrier Nation, Nee-Tahi-Buhn Band, Skin Tyee Nations, Wet`suwet`en First Nation

Economic and Community Development Agreements with four Bulkley-Nechako area First Nations to receive a share of mineral tax revenues collected by the Province from the expansion of the Huckleberry Mine.


Energy May 23

BC-wide ABR, First Nations, Industry LNG Environmental Stewardship Initiative (LNGESI) creates a mechanism for First Nations, the Province and private sector to collaborate on long-term stewardship of the land that will complement existing environmental standards, legislation and regulatory processes.

Contact: See B.C. to engage with First Nations, industry on eco-stewardship

Business & Investment May 28

BC-wide JTST, ABR, Aboriginal Business and Investment Council (ABIC), BC Business Council (BCBC)

Three new members appointed to the ABIC will help improve Aboriginal participation in BC’s economy by focusing on identifying successful partnerships between Aboriginal communities, industry and government to create practical measures for economic development.

Contact: See BC Aboriginal Business & Investment Council Website.

Land & Resources June 6

Central Coast

FLNR, Heiltsuk First Nation, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais First Nation, Wuikinuxv First Nation, Nuxalk Nation

Central Coast draft Marine Plan consultation announced as part of the Marine Planning Partnership (MaPP) initiative. The MaPP initiative is a partnership between the Province and 18 First Nations working to create plans for marine uses and long-term ocean health on the north and central coasts.

Contact: MaPP via the Marine Planning Partnership for the North Pacific Coast webpage.

ARC - 141

http://www.tahltan.org/project/socio-cultural-working-group



http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=00D9B39C169B4E95BAAB740A9B52D54A






http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2014ARR0011-000701.pdf



http://www.bcabic.ca/council



http://mappocean.org/north-coast/draft-plan-for-input/



3


Land & Resource Agreements June 10

Cariboo-Chilcotin

ABR, Alexis Creek Indian Band, Tl’etinqox-t’in Government Office, Xeni Gwet’in First Nations, ?Esdilagh First Nations, Toosey Indian Band

Tsilhqot’in Stewardship Agreement (TSA) builds on the success of the original framework agreement which formalized a single window for referrals on natural resource applications within the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory. Funding will pave the way for agreement implantation, negotiation capacity, an improved wildlife committee, and implementation of a forest strategy. Total Commitment: $670,000

Contact: ABR website via Tsilhqot'in National Government webpage.


Northwest ABR, MTICS, Haisla Nation, District of Kitimat

The sale of the former Kitimat hospital lands by the Province to the Haisla Nation significantly enhances the relationship between the Province, First Nations and District of Kitimat, and will enable new economic development opportunities for the Haisla and the community as a whole.

Contact: MARR website via Province’s land sale to Haisla Nation strengthens relationship.


Fraser Valley

ABR, Chawathil First Nation, Cheam First Nation, Leq’á:mel First Nation, Scowlitz First Nation, Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation, Skawahlook First Nation, Sumas First Nation and the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe, which signed on behalf of the Aitchelitz Band, Shxwhá:y Village, Skowkale First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Yakweakwisoose First Nation.

The Stó:lō First Nations Strategic Engagement Agreement enhances effective consultation and engagement on land and resource management decisions with 14 First Nations. The three-year agreement builds on a previous pilot agreement in which the Province worked with the Stó:lō referrals office to ensure applications are referred to the appropriate signatory FN within agreed timelines. Total commitment: $2.1 million

Contact: MARR website via the Strategic Engagement Agreements webpage.

Forestry June 30

BC-wide FLNR, ABR, First Nations From April 1 – June 30, 2014, the Province signed Forestry Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements (FCRSAs) with a number of First Nations, bringing the total to approx.. 150 agreements since FCRSAs were introduced in December 2010. FCRSAs provide FN communities with economic benefits returning directly to their community based on harvest activities within their traditional territories.

Contact: ABR via Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements webpage.

Key:

ARR Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation AGRI Ministry of Agriculture AVED Ministry of Advanced Education CFD Ministry of Children & Family Development CSCD Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development EDUC Ministry of Education ENV Ministry of Environment FIN Ministry of Finance FLNR Ministry of Forest, Lands & Natural Resource Operations HLTH Ministry of Health JAG Ministry of Justice & Attorney General JTST Ministry of Jobs, Tourism & Skills Training (Resp. for Labour)

ARC - 142

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=1072F40CADFA4966B65DB15C3877AB31&title=Tsilhqot%27in%20National%20Government




http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=00C8FEF3481D4028B1EF0FD67B1695C4


http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=5633DE296BAC46098E130A382AAF9D03



4

MEM Ministry of Energy & Mines MIT Ministry of International Trade (Resp. for Multiculturalism) MNGD Ministry of Natural Gas Development (Responsible for Housing) MTICS Ministry of Technology, Innovation & Citizens’ Services SDSI Ministry of Social Development & Social Innovation TRAN Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

ARC - 143

1

New Relationship

Social Initiatives


Sector Region Partners Description Contacts Education April 5

BC-Wide MIT, MARR, BC Public Service Agency (PSA)

MARR and PSA win the Nesika Award for multicultural excellence in government for the e-learning course, Building Capacity in Aboriginal Relations. The course strengthens the capacity of public servants to work respectfully, knowledgably and effectively with Aboriginal communities, organizations and people.

Contact: MIT via the Embrace BC webpage.

Culture April 9

BC-wide CSCD, Wachiay Friendship Centre (Comox), Ft. St. John Friendship Centre, Ki-Low-Na Friendship Society, West Moberly First Nations, Quesnel Tillicum Society

Non-profit cultural organizations, First Nations and friendship centres share BC Government grants via the BC Creative Spaces program. Five Aboriginal groups received funding to improve local arts infrastructure, community, sport and cultural development. Total commitment: $123,700

Contact: CSCD via Arts and Culture webpage.

Social Initiatives April 15

BC-wide MCFD, BC Rep for Children & Youth (BCRCY), Adoptive Families Assn of BC, Indigenous Perspectives Society, Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children & Family Services Society

Funding to help more children and youth in care to find homes through adoption and guardianship. Includes $639,000 to the Indigenous Perspectives Society and $50,000 for the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society. Total Commitment: $2 million

Contact: MCFD via the Adoption Webpage.

Employment & Training April 15

South Okanagan

MOJ, Plenary Group, Osoyoos Indian Band

BC Government and Plenary Justice, the private partner for the Okanagan Correction Centre (OCC), sign a fix-priced, performance-based agreement for the construction of the new facility. The Province worked in partnership with the Osoyoos Indian Band (OIC) to expand and realign roads and services for the Senkulmen Business Park project site in order to accommodate the OCC on OIB land. Total Commitment: $192.9-million.

Contact: MOJ via the Facilities Website.


Vancouver Island South

SDSI, Wachiay Aboriginal Friendship Centre, Comox Art Gallery, AQ’SAAK Aboriginal Food Products Ltd.,

BC’s first Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day celebrated with unveiling of symbolic logo. The event profiled several social enterprise businesses in the Comox Valley. Social enterprises differ from most traditional businesses in that profits are re-invested for a social or environmental purpose.

Contact: SDSI via the Social innovation in BC website.

6.7

ARC - 144

http://www.embracebc.ca/

http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/arts_culture/


http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/adoption/index.htm

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/corrections/about-us/facilities.htm

http://www.sdsi.gov.bc.ca/social-innovation/index.htm


2


BC-Wide MCFD, Early Childhood Educators of BC, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, Langara College

Funding for Early Childhood Educators of BC to establish a bursary fund for students enrolling or enrolled in early childhood educational programs. Priorities will be given to Aboriginal students, students attending early childhood educational programs with an Aboriginal focus, and students working to achieve an infant/toddler educator designation. Total Commitment: $513,000

Contact: Early Childhood Educators of BC website

Culture April 25

BC-Wide CSCD, BC Arts Council, U’Mista Cultural Society, First Peoples Cultural Council, Nisga’a Museum, Haida Gwaii Museum, Musqueam Indian Band

BC Arts Council grants announced for community cultural organizations and events, including local arts councils, art galleries, theatres, museums and arts festivals. Groups include Aboriginal organizations and communities. Total Commitment: $13 million

Contact: BC Arts Council website


BC-Wide JTST, AVED, EDUC, MARR, Aboriginal Mentoring and Training Assn, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, BC Assn of Aboriginal Friendship Centres

BC’s Skills for jobs Blueprint: Re-engineering Education Training strategy lays out a major shift in BC’s education and apprenticeship systems where training dollars and programs are targeted to jobs in demand. The blueprint includes funding for expanding the Aboriginal workforce and increasing Aboriginal skills training in conjunction with other provincial ministries, Canada and Aboriginal partners. Total commitment: $3 billion

Contact: WorkBC Official Website


BC-wide MARR, AVED BC Skills for Jobs Blueprint funding to support the Aboriginal Community-Based Delivery Partnerships Program that provides post-secondary education and training to Aboriginal learners in their communities. Training programs includes a diverse range of specializations from skills training for employment in the oil and gas sectors or mining, to eco-tourism, fish and wildlife management and training to teach indigenous languages. Total commitment: $4.4 million

Contact: AVED via the Aboriginal Community-Based Partnerships Program website.

Employment & Training May 1

Kootenay East

HLTH, Doctors of BC, Selkirk College

Funding for a pre-med program at Selkirk College will support the college to launch a three-year program intended to provide more educational opportunities for rural and Aboriginal students interested in practicing medicine in a rural setting. Total commitment: $1 million

Contact: Ministry of Health Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues website.

ARC - 145

http://www.ecebc.ca/index.php


https://www.bcartscouncil.ca/


http://www.workbc.ca/skills


http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/aboriginal/programs.htm



http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/pcb/rural_jsc.html


3

Sector Region Partners Description Contacts Health May 7

BC-wide HLTH, Kwikwetlem First Nation, Nak'azdli First Nation, Seabird Island Band, Snaw-naw-as First Nation, Squamish Nation, Sto:Lo Nation, Toquaht Nation, Treaty 8 Tribal Association, Sumas First Nation, Enderby and Splatsin Band

Forty-nine communities receive BC Health Community Capacity Building Funding grants to assist with healthy community planning, projects, and policy development. Includes grants to 10 First Nations communities. Total Commitment: $375,000

Contact: HLTH website via Plan h webpage.

Health May 14

BC-wide CSCD, ViaSport Local Sport Program Development fund grants to 17 non-profit groups for sport programs. Includes funding to Lax Kw’alaams Band for a learn-to-swim program. Total commitment: $34,000

Contact: CSCD website via ViaSport Grant Funding Programs webpage.

Reconciliation May 14

BC-wide MARR, Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development Canada (AANDC), University of Victoria, Victoria Aboriginal Friendship Centre, Truth & Reconciliation Commission

The Province honoured the legacy of the Indian Residential Schools with its contribution to a large-scale art installation called the Witness Blanket unveiled at the University of Victoria. The cedar Witness Blanket was created by Coast Salish artist Carey Newman with donations from the BC and other legislatures as well as former residential schools, churches, friendship centres, band offices and educational institutions.

Contact: Witness Blanket website.

Culture & Heritage Protection May 22

South Okanagan

ENV, Osoyoos Indian Band Osoyoos Indian Band Haynes Point Provincial Park Cultural Heritage Agreement will respect OIB cultural heritage sites within the park. BC Parks and OIB will work in partnership to ensure the long-term protection and management of these sites which falls within the band`s traditional territory.

Contact: See Protection for Osoyoos Indian Band burial site in Haynes Point Provincial Park News Release.

Justice June 13

BC-wide MARR, First Nations Summit, BC Assembly of First Nations, Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Metis Nation BC

The Stopping Violence Against Aboriginal Women & Children Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between government and Aboriginal organizations confirms a shared commitment to end violence against Aboriginal women and children. The MOU ties in with the work of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women (MACAW) to move towards a violence-free BC.

Contact: MARR website via Ministry Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women (MACAW) webpage.

ARC - 146

http://planh.ca/funding/round-two-grants

http://www.viasport.ca/grant-funding-programs


http://witnessblanket.ca/


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/parkpgs/haynes_pt/nr-haynes-pt-may22.pdf





http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/social/min_adv_council_on_aboriginal_women.html



4

Sector Region Partners Description Contacts Education June 21

BC-wide AVED, MARR, Camosun College, Capilano University, College of New Caledonia, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, North Island College, Northwest Community College, Thompson Rivers University, University of Northern British Columbia, University of Victoria, Vancouver Community College, Vancouver Island University

Eleven of colleges and universities received funding to support their Aboriginal service plans for programs and activities to enhance Aboriginal learners’ post-secondary education and training experiences and outcomes. Aboriginal Service Plans are developed co-operatively by post-secondary institutions and Aboriginal communities, organizations and institutes. Total Commitment: $3.9 million

Contact: AVED via the Aboriginal Education and Training website.

Key: ARR Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation AGRI Ministry of Agriculture AVED Ministry of Advanced Education CFD Ministry of Children & Family Development CSCD Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development EDUC Ministry of Education ENV Ministry of Environment FIN Ministry of Finance FLNR Ministry of Forest, Lands & Natural Resource Operations HLTH Ministry of Health JAG Ministry of Justice & Attorney General JTST Ministry of Jobs, Tourism & Skills Training (Resp. for Labour) MEM Ministry of Energy & Mines MIT Ministry of International Trade (Resp. for Multiculturalism) MNGD Ministry of Natural Gas Development (Responsible for Housing) MTICS Ministry of Technology, Innovation & Citizens’ Services SDSI Ministry of Social Development & Social Innovation TRAN Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

ARC - 147

http://www.aved.gov.bc.ca/aboriginal/welcome.htm


New Relationship Agreements in British Columbia, 2008-2014(Financial commitments made and announced by the Government of BC and Government of Canada in New Relationship Agreements with First Nations in BC)

Financial Commitments made by the Government of British Columbia and the Government of CanadaYEAR 1st Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 4th Quarter ANNUAL

Lands & Resources Social Initiatives Lands & Resources Social Initiatives Lands & Resources Social Initiatives Lands & Resources Social Initiatives TOTALS

BC -$ -$ 33,989,000$ 80,493,700$ 107,459,225$ 56,049,500$ 55,010,655$ 60,232,000$ 393,234,080$

2008 Can. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total -$ -$ 33,989,000$ 80,493,700$ 107,459,225$ 56,049,500$ 55,010,655$ 60,232,000$ 393,234,080$

BC 58,085,622$ 78,621,524$ 126,392,000$ 47,116,175$ 63,755,000$ 25,509,240$ 28,950,000$ 71,554,500$ 499,984,061$

2009 Can. 25,000,000$ -$ 19,900,000$ 14,000,000$ -$ 1,050,000$ 14,100,000$ 11,758,000$ 85,808,000$

Total 83,085,622$ 78,621,524$ 146,292,000$ 61,116,175$ 63,755,000$ 26,559,240$ 43,050,000$ 83,312,500$ 585,792,061$

BC 20,900,000$ 5,990,200$ 21,760,000$ 45,060,000$ 40,976,000$ 85,624,400$ 1,982,029$ 6,701,000$ 228,993,629$ -$

2010 Can. -$ -$ 4,000,000$ 1,780,000$ 11,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 16,780,000$ -$

Total 20,900,000$ 5,990,200$ 25,760,000$ 46,840,000$ 51,976,000$ 85,624,400$ 1,982,029$ 6,701,000$ 245,773,629$

BC 1,208,000$ 19,550,000$ 11,052,000$ 72,259,400$ 18,188,500$ 11,212,000$ 54,510,000$ 7,585,000$ 195,564,900$ -$

2011 Can. 600,000$ -$ -$ 11,750,000$ -$ 1,300,000$ 11,000,000$ -$ 24,650,000$ -$

Total 1,808,000$ 19,550,000$ 11,052,000$ 84,009,400$ 18,188,500$ 12,512,000$ 65,510,000$ 7,585,000$ 220,214,900$

BC 200,000,000$ 6,572,709$ 1,956,464$ 134,721,700$ 2,357,000$ 19,500,000$ 1,464,000$ 7,042,000$ 373,613,873$

2012 Can. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total 200,000,000$ 6,572,709$ 1,956,464$ 134,721,700$ 2,357,000$ 19,500,000$ 1,464,000$ 7,042,000$ 373,613,873$

BC 33,517,280$ 58,632,818$ -$ 968,800$ 1,923,225$ 3,645,000$ 1,310,000$ 5,800,000$ 105,797,123$

2013 Can. -$ 5,200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,200,000$

Total 33,517,280$ 63,832,818$ -$ 968,800$ 1,923,225$ 3,645,000$ 1,310,000$ 5,800,000$ 110,997,123$

BC 100,000$ 7,700,000$ 8,470,000$ 3,218,245,700$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,234,515,700$

2014 Can. -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Total 100,000$ 7,700,000$ 8,470,000$ 3,218,245,700$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,234,515,700$

Updated: 8/13/2014 6:44 PM Page 1

6.8

ARC - 148

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text


Annual Financial Commitments

British Columbia British Columbia Canada Canada Total Combined Total Combined Total To-Date

YEAR Lands & Resources Social Initiatives Lands & Resources Social Initiatives Lands & Resources Social Initiatives Commitments

2008 196,458,880$ 196,775,200$ -$ -$ 196,458,880$ 196,775,200$ 393,234,080$ 2009 277,182,622$ 222,801,439$ 59,000,000$ 26,808,000$ 336,182,622$ 249,609,439$ 585,792,061$ 2010 85,618,029$ 143,375,600$ 15,000,000$ 1,780,000$ 100,618,029$ 145,155,600$ 245,773,629$ 2011 84,958,500$ 110,606,400$ 11,600,000$ 13,050,000$ 96,558,500$ 123,656,400$ 220,214,900$ 2012 205,777,464$ 167,836,409$ -$ -$ 205,777,464$ 167,836,409$ 373,613,873$ 2013 36,750,505$ 69,046,618$ -$ 5,200,000$ 36,750,505$ 74,246,618$ 110,997,123$ 2014 8,570,000$ 3,225,945,700$ -$ -$ 8,570,000$ 3,225,945,700$ 3,234,515,700$

Totals 895,316,000$ 4,136,387,366$ 85,600,000$ 46,838,000$ 980,916,000$ 4,183,225,366$ 5,164,141,366$ BC 5,031,703,366$ 97.44%Canada 132,438,000$ 2.56%

Total Number of New Relationship Agreements Average Financial Commitment (in dollars) per New Relationship Agreement(also includes those agreements without financial commitments) (also includes those agreements without financial commitments)

Lands & Social Total Number of $$$ per Lands & $$$ per Social $$$ per TotalYEAR Resources Initiatives Agreements YEAR Resource Agrmts Initiatives Agrmts No. of Agrmts.2008 83 103 186 2008 2,366,974.46$ 1,910,438.83$ 2,114,161.72$ 2009 65 106 171 2009 5,172,040.34$ 2,354,806.03$ 3,425,684.57$ 2010 38 68 106 2010 2,647,842.87$ 2,134,641.18$ 2,318,619.14$ 2011 46 52 98 2011 2,099,097.83$ 2,378,007.69$ 2,247,090.82$ 2012 47 64 111 2012 4,378,243.91$ 2,622,443.89$ 3,365,890.75$ 2013 49 30 79 2013 750,010.31$ 2,474,887.27$ 1,405,026.87$ 2014 24 24 48 2014 357,083.33$ 134,414,404.17$ 67,385,743.75$

Totals 352 447 799 Totals 2,786,693.18$ 9,358,446.01$ 6,463,255.78$

Updated: 8/13/2014 6:44 PM Page 2

ARC - 149


Sectors Involved in New Relationship Agreements in BC, 2008-2014Lands&Resources Number of L&R % of Total Social Initiatives Number of SI % of Total

SECTORS Agreements Lands&Resource SECTORS Agreements Social Initiatives Aquaculture 2 0.6% Business & Industry 4 0.9%Agriculture 2 0.6% Cap. Bldg.& Infrast. 7 1.6%Bus. & Investment 2 0.6% Child. Fam. Dev. 27 6.0%Conservation Init. 16 4.5% Crime Prevention 3 0.7%Consultation Init. 4 1.1% Culture & Heritage 82 18.3%Economic Develop. 24 6.8% Education 101 22.6%Energy 32 9.1% Employ. &Training 90 20.1%Environment 16 4.5% Green Initiatives 7 1.6%Fisheries 2 0.6% Health 39 8.7%Forestry 90 25.6% Housing 52 11.6%Infrastructure 14 4.0% Justice 10 2.2%Lands & Resources 107 30.4% Policing 1 0.2%Mining 14 4.0% Reconciliation 3 0.7%Oil & Gas Develop. 5 1.4% Social Programs 9 2.0%Parks & Prot. Areas 2 0.6% Sports & Recreation 7 1.6%Reconciliation 2 0.6% Technology 2 0.4%Servicing Agreement 1 0.3% Women's Initiatives 2 0.4%Tourism 6 1.7% Youth 1 0.2%Transportation 11 3.1%TOTALS 352 100.0% TOTALS 447 100.0%

New Relationship Agreements by Region, 2008-2014(Lower Mainland includes Fraser Valley; BC-Wide refers to individual agreements that apply to the entire Province)

Lands&Resources Lands&Resources Lands&Resources Lands&Resources Social Initiatives Social Initiatives Social Initiatives Social InitiativesYEAR Lower Mainland Other Regions BC-Wide TOTAL Lower Mainland Other Regions BC-Wide TOTAL2008 10 48 25 83 17 47 39 1032009 5 53 7 65 18 67 21 1062010 2 29 7 38 7 43 18 682011 5 30 11 46 10 25 17 522012 4 28 15 47 13 26 25 642013 3 40 6 49 5 13 12 302014 2 16 6 24 2 8 14 24

Totals 31 244 77 352 72 229 146 447

New Relationship Agreements in the Lower Mainland showing Financial Commitments in Dollars, 2008-2014(Lower Mainland includes Fraser Valley; BC-Wide refers to individual agreements that apply to the entire Province)

Lands&Resources Lands&Resources Percentage of Social Initiatives Social Initiatives Percentage ofYEAR Lower Mainland TOTAL TOTAL Lower Mainland TOTAL TOTAL2008 23,270,000$ 196,458,880$ 11.8% 23,936,000$ 196,775,200$ 12.2%2009 49,022,622$ 336,182,622$ 14.6% 43,178,375$ 249,609,439$ 17.3%2010 7,332,029$ 100,618,029$ 7.3% 34,772,400$ 145,155,600$ 24.0%2011 24,252,000$ 96,558,500$ 25.1% 41,612,500$ 123,656,400$ 33.7%2012 346,464$ 205,777,464$ 0.2% 19,297,000$ 167,836,409$ 11.5%2013 78,000$ 36,750,505$ 0.2% 25,400,000$ 74,246,618$ 34.2%2014 -$ 8,570,000$ 0.0% 100,000$ 3,225,945,700$ 0.0%

Totals 104,301,115$ 980,916,000$ 10.6% 188,296,275$ 4,183,225,366$ 4.5%

Updated: 8/13/2014 6:44 PM Page 3

ARC - 150

UPCOMING C 0 N F E R E N C E

• • • e 1 n1 cance an

• • m 1ca 1ons o e

si o 'in ecision Chaired by: David M. Robbins, Woodward & Company LLP

September 26th, 2014, Vancouver, B.C.

This is a ground-breaking chapter in the evolution of Canadian Aboriginal law. It is the farthest-reaching decision on First Nations' land claims and title to date. The implications for First Nations, industry, provincial and federal governments have been described as "massive," "game-changing" and "staggering."

Chaired by those with over a decade of first-hand experience on the case at trial, on appeal and at the Supreme Court of Canada, this course explains the critical changes and impact on: the definition of Aboriginal rights and title; unsettled and new land claims; projects and partnerships between First Nations and industry, including consultation and accommodation; the role of Provincial and Federal governments; and treaty negotiations.

REG I 5 T RAT I 0 N

Local Governments and First Nations: Critical Issues October 3rd, 2014. SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C.

Name _________________ Title ___________ _

Company/Firm, ___________________________ _

Address, _____________________________ _

City ___________ Province._· ________ Code ________ _

Telephone __________ E-mail _________________ _

Method of Payment 0 Cheque (payable to Affinity Institute Inc.) 0 Credit Card Card Type __________ _

Cardholder name. ___________________________ _

Card Number ________________ Expdate __________ _

Payment and Cancellation Policy: Payment must be received prior to the conference. Course fee is refundable (less a $75.00 administrative fee) if notice is received seven business days before the course (September 24th, 2014). After this deadline, we are

unable to offer a refund but will accept substitutions up to and including the day of the conference. Affinity Institute Inc. reserves the right to cancel or reschedule courses, or change speakers, location or content.

REGISTER ONLINE: www.affinityinstitute.ca

REGISTER BY MAIL: Affinity Institute Inc. , 2228 Yew Street. Vancouver. BC, V6K 3G9

REGISTER BY PHONE: 778-926-0862

Registration fee Includes: The program, all program materials, coffee breaks and a casual networking lunch.

ACCREDITATI ON

LAWYERS

This program has been pre-approved by the Law Societies of B.C. and Saskatchewan

for 7.3 and 7.5 hours respectively.

For Alberta lawyers, consider including this course as a CPO learning activity in your

mandatory annual Continuing Professional Development Plan as required by the Law

Society of Alberta.

For Ontario lawyers, this program qualifies for 7.3 substantive CPO hours with the

Law Society of Upper Canada.

PRICING

Early Bird Deadline (August 29th, 2014) $650.00 + $32.50 GST = $682.50

Regular Course Price $695.00 + $34.75 GST = $729.75

Affiliation pricing code ___ _ (if applicable)

6.9

ARC - 151

KTHANDI

Typewritten Text

ARC - 152

Augusl 25, 20 14

Greg Moore Chair, Mctm Vancouver Board 4330 Kingswuy Burnahy 8(' V!H 1408

Deur Greg Moore:

-..-.. BHITISH

COI.UI\IBI A

G~. c.M lldlon: "' oo··o• ' • .,._, 'N'I:fl ·MO 0 o o ' • ., • o

.......... ""' f:\l\~. . . . ' .... ·····-· ............. , ........... ' . ................. •.trl"· .•.. ......... ..... ... . . lnlaCGP'I ~.\ .~ ... · ... · · ;;;:-w · FiiiNo. ...... • ~.o1.":a~it\~ Ooc.th .... .'.Q.f.~.'!..f.Y..?. • .............. CAOTnldtorNo· .Q/QJ.f.:':'.~ ........ ·

Rcf.·3-t652

In response to your June 6, 20141cuer to the Honoumhlc John Rustttd, Minister of Aboriginal Rehttions tmd Rcconciliution, regurding New Relationship agreements in British Columbia fmm 2008-20 13, I have enclosed an updutcd list of ugr·ccmcnt.., us per YOlll' I'C<IliCSl.

Plcttse ac«.:cpt my upologies for the delay in response-· we were U\\ailing the latest updmes to this list

Kind rcgurds,

Jl!ancttc Sidhu .. Schcrcr \on-cspum.lcncc l:nit, Ministry of Aboriginal Rchuions mu.l Rccunciliminn

Mlui5'" .. r AIHm11ino~IJto:r.uim ... lllltl lto:&.~u~III,UitNI

Oli~&.-.: ul tho: llo:rmt~ Miui~ao:r l\l.tilill~t Atlcln..,.tt: II",,, .. I~ .. ,.,. I c '" I

\ "r••n Ill \ ·;\\ ·•Ill

6.10

ARC - 153

KTHANDI

Text Box

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Typewritten Text

1

New Relationship

Lands and Resources and Economic Development Initiatives



Land & Resource Agreements April 9

Northwest ABR, Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, Metlakatla First Nation, Aurora LNG, Woodside Petroleum Ltd.

Revenue sharing agreements signed between BC, Lax Kw’alaams, Metlakatla, Aurora LNG and Woodside. The agreements share a portion of government revenues related to the Grassy Point lands near Pr. Rupert identified as the potential site for new LNG export facilities.

Contact: ABR website via B.C. and First Nations sign first LNG revenue-sharing agreements.


South Interior

MTI, District of Barriere, Simpcw First Nation

B.C. government officially transferred land on the site of the former Tolko Industries Ltd. mill to the District of Barriere and the Simpcw First Nation. This remediated land will provide a land base for new industry and new jobs for the region. Total Commitment: $4.6 million

Contact: MTI via the Transportation Projects BC webpage.

Energy May 1

ABR, Fort Nelson First Nation The Province and Fort Nelson First Nation agreed on a new path for their relationship based on a mutual objective to have the most environmentally responsible LNG industry in the world and for FNs to be partners and key players in BC’s LNG strategy. Senior government officials will work with the FN to make decisions that will ensure timely progress toward achieving a safe, sustainable LNG industry.

Contact: via FLNR Land Tenures Branch Website.

Conservation May 5

Cariboo-Chilcotin

FLNR, First Nations, Stakeholders

The public, First Nations and natural resource stakeholders are invited to submit their feedback on a proposed Elk Management Plan for the Cariboo Region. The plan will balance the traditional needs of First Nations with the economic and social interests of local communities and stakeholders, while protecting and managing wildlife resources.

Contact: FLNR via the Elk in the Cariboo-Chilcotin: Public Consultation webpage.

Energy May 6

North ABR, Tahltan Central Council, AltaGas Renewable Energy Inc.

Two BC First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund Revenue Sharing Agreements allow the Tahltan to share revenues from run-of-the-river projects for ongoing economic development initiatives. The Tahltan will receive a share of water rentals and land rents charged by the Province for licences issued to power developer AltaGas Renewable Energy.

Contact: MARR via First Nations Clean Energy Business Fund webpage.

ARC - 154














2



North ABR, Tahltan Central Council, Tahltan Socio-Economic Working Group (TSCWG), BC Hydro

BC Government funding to support the continuing operation of the Tahltan Socio-Economic Working Group (TSCWG), established in 2011 under the Northwest Transmission Line (NTL) Negotiation Framework Agreement. The establishment of the TSCWG fulfilled the Province’s commitment under the NTL Negotiation Framework Agreement to develop a government-to-government forum to address social and cultural challenges arising out of resource development on Tahltan territory. Total commitment: $550,000

Contact: Access the Tahltan Central Council Socio-Cultural Working Group report.


South Interior

ABR, Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council (Lytton, Skupah, Oregon Jack Creek, Boothroyd, Spuzzum First Nations), Highland Valley Copper Mine

Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council (NNTC) Land and Resource Decision Making Pilot Agreement creates a shared decision-making board that will make recommendations and support more collaborative engagement on land and resource use decisions. The first area of focus will be directed at mining and forestry decisions. The pilot will also develop a process that will focus on early collaboration between the NNTC and industry proponents. Total commitment: $550,000



Northwest ABR, MEM, Huckleberry Mines Ltd., Cheslatta Carrier Nation, Nee-Tahi-Buhn Band, Skin Tyee Nations, Wet`suwet`en First Nation

Economic and Community Development Agreements with four Bulkley-Nechako area First Nations to receive a share of mineral tax revenues collected by the Province from the expansion of the Huckleberry Mine.


Energy May 23

BC-wide ABR, First Nations, Industry LNG Environmental Stewardship Initiative (LNGESI) creates a mechanism for First Nations, the Province and private sector to collaborate on long-term stewardship of the land that will complement existing environmental standards, legislation and regulatory processes.

Contact: See B.C. to engage with First Nations, industry on eco-stewardship

Business & Investment May 28

BC-wide JTST, ABR, Aboriginal Business and Investment Council (ABIC), BC Business Council (BCBC)

Three new members appointed to the ABIC will help improve Aboriginal participation in BC’s economy by focusing on identifying successful partnerships between Aboriginal communities, industry and government to create practical measures for economic development.

Contact: See BC Aboriginal Business & Investment Council Website.


Central Coast

FLNR, Heiltsuk First Nation, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais First Nation, Wuikinuxv First Nation, Nuxalk Nation

Central Coast draft Marine Plan consultation announced as part of the Marine Planning Partnership (MaPP) initiative. The MaPP initiative is a partnership between the Province and 18 First Nations working to create plans for marine uses and long-term ocean health on the north and central coasts.

Contact: MaPP via the Marine Planning Partnership for the North Pacific Coast webpage.

ARC - 155



















kthandi

Typewritten Text

kthandi

Text Box

3


Land & Resource Agreements June 10

Cariboo-Chilcotin

ABR, Alexis Creek Indian Band, Tl’etinqox-t’in Government Office, Xeni Gwet’in First Nations, ?Esdilagh First Nations, Toosey Indian Band

Tsilhqot’in Stewardship Agreement (TSA) builds on the success of the original framework agreement which formalized a single window for referrals on natural resource applications within the Tsilhqot’in traditional territory. Funding will pave the way for agreement implantation, negotiation capacity, an improved wildlife committee, and implementation of a forest strategy. Total Commitment: $670,000

Contact: ABR website via Tsilhqot'in National Government webpage.


Northwest ABR, MTICS, Haisla Nation, District of Kitimat

The sale of the former Kitimat hospital lands by the Province to the Haisla Nation significantly enhances the relationship between the Province, First Nations and District of Kitimat, and will enable new economic development opportunities for the Haisla and the community as a whole.

Contact: MARR website via Province’s land sale to Haisla Nation strengthens relationship.


Fraser Valley

ABR, Chawathil First Nation, Cheam First Nation, Leq’á:mel First Nation, Scowlitz First Nation, Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation, Skawahlook First Nation, Sumas First Nation and the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribe, which signed on behalf of the Aitchelitz Band, Shxwhá:y Village, Skowkale First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Yakweakwisoose First Nation.

The Stó:lō First Nations Strategic Engagement Agreement enhances effective consultation and engagement on land and resource management decisions with 14 First Nations. The three-year agreement builds on a previous pilot agreement in which the Province worked with the Stó:lō referrals office to ensure applications are referred to the appropriate signatory FN within agreed timelines. Total commitment: $2.1 million

Contact: MARR website via the Strategic Engagement Agreements webpage.

Forestry June 30

BC-wide FLNR, ABR, First Nations From April 1 – June 30, 2014, the Province signed Forestry Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements (FCRSAs) with a number of First Nations, bringing the total to approx.. 150 agreements since FCRSAs were introduced in December 2010. FCRSAs provide FN communities with economic benefits returning directly to their community based on harvest activities within their traditional territories.

Contact: ABR via Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements webpage.

Key:

ARR Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation AGRI Ministry of Agriculture AVED Ministry of Advanced Education CFD Ministry of Children & Family Development CSCD Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development EDUC Ministry of Education ENV Ministry of Environment FIN Ministry of Finance FLNR Ministry of Forest, Lands & Natural Resource Operations HLTH Ministry of Health JAG Ministry of Justice & Attorney General JTST Ministry of Jobs, Tourism & Skills Training (Resp. for Labour)

ARC - 156










kthandi

Text Box

4

MEM Ministry of Energy & Mines MIT Ministry of International Trade (Resp. for Multiculturalism) MNGD Ministry of Natural Gas Development (Responsible for Housing) MTICS Ministry of Technology, Innovation & Citizens’ Services SDSI Ministry of Social Development & Social Innovation TRAN Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

ARC - 157

kthandi

Text Box

1

New Relationship

Social Initiatives



BC-Wide MIT, MARR, BC Public Service Agency (PSA)

MARR and PSA win the Nesika Award for multicultural excellence in government for the e-learning course, Building Capacity in Aboriginal Relations. The course strengthens the capacity of public servants to work respectfully, knowledgably and effectively with Aboriginal communities, organizations and people.

Contact: MIT via the Embrace BC webpage.

Culture April 9

BC-wide CSCD, Wachiay Friendship Centre (Comox), Ft. St. John Friendship Centre, Ki-Low-Na Friendship Society, West Moberly First Nations, Quesnel Tillicum Society

Non-profit cultural organizations, First Nations and friendship centres share BC Government grants via the BC Creative Spaces program. Five Aboriginal groups received funding to improve local arts infrastructure, community, sport and cultural development. Total commitment: $123,700

Contact: CSCD via Arts and Culture webpage.

Social Initiatives April 15

BC-wide MCFD, BC Rep for Children & Youth (BCRCY), Adoptive Families Assn of BC, Indigenous Perspectives Society, Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children & Family Services Society

Funding to help more children and youth in care to find homes through adoption and guardianship. Includes $639,000 to the Indigenous Perspectives Society and $50,000 for the Fraser Valley Aboriginal Children and Family Services Society. Total Commitment: $2 million

Contact: MCFD via the Adoption Webpage.


South Okanagan

MOJ, Plenary Group, Osoyoos Indian Band

BC Government and Plenary Justice, the private partner for the Okanagan Correction Centre (OCC), sign a fix-priced, performance-based agreement for the construction of the new facility. The Province worked in partnership with the Osoyoos Indian Band (OIC) to expand and realign roads and services for the Senkulmen Business Park project site in order to accommodate the OCC on OIB land. Total Commitment: $192.9-million.

Contact: MOJ via the Facilities Website.


Vancouver Island South

SDSI, Wachiay Aboriginal Friendship Centre, Comox Art Gallery, AQ’SAAK Aboriginal Food Products Ltd.,

BC’s first Aboriginal Social Enterprise Day celebrated with unveiling of symbolic logo. The event profiled several social enterprise businesses in the Comox Valley. Social enterprises differ from most traditional businesses in that profits are re-invested for a social or environmental purpose.

Contact: SDSI via the Social innovation in BC website.

ARC - 158

http://www.embracebc.ca/



http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/adoption/index.htm

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/corrections/about-us/facilities.htm



kthandi

Text Box

2


BC-Wide MCFD, Early Childhood Educators of BC, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, Langara College

Funding for Early Childhood Educators of BC to establish a bursary fund for students enrolling or enrolled in early childhood educational programs. Priorities will be given to Aboriginal students, students attending early childhood educational programs with an Aboriginal focus, and students working to achieve an infant/toddler educator designation. Total Commitment: $513,000

Contact: Early Childhood Educators of BC website

Culture April 25

BC-Wide CSCD, BC Arts Council, U’Mista Cultural Society, First Peoples Cultural Council, Nisga’a Museum, Haida Gwaii Museum, Musqueam Indian Band

BC Arts Council grants announced for community cultural organizations and events, including local arts councils, art galleries, theatres, museums and arts festivals. Groups include Aboriginal organizations and communities. Total Commitment: $13 million

Contact: BC Arts Council website


BC-Wide JTST, AVED, EDUC, MARR, Aboriginal Mentoring and Training Assn, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, BC Assn of Aboriginal Friendship Centres

BC’s Skills for jobs Blueprint: Re-engineering Education Training strategy lays out a major shift in BC’s education and apprenticeship systems where training dollars and programs are targeted to jobs in demand. The blueprint includes funding for expanding the Aboriginal workforce and increasing Aboriginal skills training in conjunction with other provincial ministries, Canada and Aboriginal partners. Total commitment: $3 billion

Contact: WorkBC Official Website


BC-wide MARR, AVED BC Skills for Jobs Blueprint funding to support the Aboriginal Community-Based Delivery Partnerships Program that provides post-secondary education and training to Aboriginal learners in their communities. Training programs includes a diverse range of specializations from skills training for employment in the oil and gas sectors or mining, to eco-tourism, fish and wildlife management and training to teach indigenous languages. Total commitment: $4.4 million

Contact: AVED via the Aboriginal Community-Based Partnerships Program website.

Employment & Training May 1

Kootenay East

HLTH, Doctors of BC, Selkirk College

Funding for a pre-med program at Selkirk College will support the college to launch a three-year program intended to provide more educational opportunities for rural and Aboriginal students interested in practicing medicine in a rural setting. Total commitment: $1 million

Contact: Ministry of Health Joint Standing Committee on Rural Issues website.

ARC - 159












3

Sector Region Partners Description Contacts Health May 7

BC-wide HLTH, Kwikwetlem First Nation, Nak'azdli First Nation, Seabird Island Band, Snaw-naw-as First Nation, Squamish Nation, Sto:Lo Nation, Toquaht Nation, Treaty 8 Tribal Association, Sumas First Nation, Enderby and Splatsin Band

Forty-nine communities receive BC Health Community Capacity Building Funding grants to assist with healthy community planning, projects, and policy development. Includes grants to 10 First Nations communities. Total Commitment: $375,000

Contact: HLTH website via Plan h webpage.

Health May 14

BC-wide CSCD, ViaSport Local Sport Program Development fund grants to 17 non-profit groups for sport programs. Includes funding to Lax Kw’alaams Band for a learn-to-swim program. Total commitment: $34,000

Contact: CSCD website via ViaSport Grant Funding Programs webpage.

Reconciliation May 14

BC-wide MARR, Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development Canada (AANDC), University of Victoria, Victoria Aboriginal Friendship Centre, Truth & Reconciliation Commission

The Province honoured the legacy of the Indian Residential Schools with its contribution to a large-scale art installation called the Witness Blanket unveiled at the University of Victoria. The cedar Witness Blanket was created by Coast Salish artist Carey Newman with donations from the BC and other legislatures as well as former residential schools, churches, friendship centres, band offices and educational institutions.

Contact: Witness Blanket website.

Culture & Heritage Protection May 22

South Okanagan

ENV, Osoyoos Indian Band Osoyoos Indian Band Haynes Point Provincial Park Cultural Heritage Agreement will respect OIB cultural heritage sites within the park. BC Parks and OIB will work in partnership to ensure the long-term protection and management of these sites which falls within the band`s traditional territory.

Contact: See Protection for Osoyoos Indian Band burial site in Haynes Point Provincial Park News Release.

Justice June 13

BC-wide MARR, First Nations Summit, BC Assembly of First Nations, Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Metis Nation BC

The Stopping Violence Against Aboriginal Women & Children Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between government and Aboriginal organizations confirms a shared commitment to end violence against Aboriginal women and children. The MOU ties in with the work of the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation’s Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women (MACAW) to move towards a violence-free BC.

Contact: MARR website via Ministry Advisory Council on Aboriginal Women (MACAW) webpage.

ARC - 160

http://planh.ca/funding/round-two-grants













kthandi

Text Box

4

Sector Region Partners Description Contacts Education June 21

BC-wide AVED, MARR, Camosun College, Capilano University, College of New Caledonia, Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, North Island College, Northwest Community College, Thompson Rivers University, University of Northern British Columbia, University of Victoria, Vancouver Community College, Vancouver Island University

Eleven of colleges and universities received funding to support their Aboriginal service plans for programs and activities to enhance Aboriginal learners’ post-secondary education and training experiences and outcomes. Aboriginal Service Plans are developed co-operatively by post-secondary institutions and Aboriginal communities, organizations and institutes. Total Commitment: $3.9 million

Contact: AVED via the Aboriginal Education and Training website.

Key: ARR Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation AGRI Ministry of Agriculture AVED Ministry of Advanced Education CFD Ministry of Children & Family Development CSCD Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development EDUC Ministry of Education ENV Ministry of Environment FIN Ministry of Finance FLNR Ministry of Forest, Lands & Natural Resource Operations HLTH Ministry of Health JAG Ministry of Justice & Attorney General JTST Ministry of Jobs, Tourism & Skills Training (Resp. for Labour) MEM Ministry of Energy & Mines MIT Ministry of International Trade (Resp. for Multiculturalism) MNGD Ministry of Natural Gas Development (Responsible for Housing) MTICS Ministry of Technology, Innovation & Citizens’ Services SDSI Ministry of Social Development & Social Innovation TRAN Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure

ARC - 161



GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ABORIGINAL …€¦ · Report submitted to UBCM on August 12,...

Documents

Transcript of GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT ABORIGINAL …€¦ · Report submitted to UBCM on August 12,...