First Nations Land Management Regime – Pathway to Self-determination?

RezX Columnist Dr. Shauneen Pete (photo by Bill Stevenson)

In November, I was invited to speak at the Canadian Western Agribition Inaugural Indigenous Agriculture Summit held in Regina.  I spoke about the history of Treaty 4 territory and our relationship to the land.  Later that morning, a woman from a local First Nation community described her experience as a band member trying to understand the First Nations Land Management Regime.  Another participant spoke about how he understood that the Regime would allow for individual land ownership on reserves.  He expressed his fears that industry would offer “quick monies” to band members and that the reserve would become only a checkerboard of lands once owned by the band; he also stated that without a significant land-base we cannot assert nationhood.  I wondered, is the FNLM Regime really a pathway to self-determination?

With this question in mind, my research journey began.  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) asserts that the First Nations Land Management Regime is designed to support self-government.  The AANDC website explains how, under the Indian Act, decision making regarding lands set aside for Indians is a responsibility of the federal government.  As such, this government must mitigate risk through risk assessments that can delay band requested land transactions. In some cases bands have had to wait for 6 months or more for decisions to come back from “the Feds”.  As you can imagine, bands wanting to engage with industry for the purposes of economic development are frustrated by these delays; delays which in some cases cost them the very business partnerships that could offer the community economic opportunity.  AANDC asserts the Regime is designed to provide First Nations with “opportunity to enact their own laws for the development, conservation, use and possession of reserve lands.”

At an Aboriginal Entrepreneurs Conference held in Ottawa in 2012, Chief Clarence Louis said, “The FNLM Regime is the most significant initiative in this country”.  He continued by saying that First Nations gain the freedom to make decisions regarding leases, permits etc. without the interference of the Federal government.  He also indicated that bands gain the authority to make decisions regarding revenue generating and investment at the local level.

On the surface this all sounds great, but like many of you, I have learned to be leery when other folks tell me something is “good for me.”  I am even more suspicious when top-down changes are dictated from “the Feds.”  To better understand other aspects of the “regime” I turned to our own local political organization, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) for more information.  FSIN has established both the FNLM Commission and the FNLM Secretariat.  These bodies provide research and policy support to bands wanting to move away from the Indian Act and towards active participation in the FNLM Regime.  I couldn’t help but wonder who provided the financial support to create these bodies and to finance the technical support?  I wondered how the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) was involved. A quick review of the AFN website offered very little in the way of information.  Well, that had to mean something…but my curiosity led me to ask different questions.  How were Indigenous media presenting these issues?

A review of Indigenous media provided a running tally of the number of bands that have signed onto the Regime.  Most of that information originated from and was released by AANDC.  I did not see any critical takes on the Regime until I began to seek out the voices outside of the formal political and media organizations of First Nations.  My inquiry led me to Indigenous intellectuals, Pam Palmater, Chelsea Vowel, Arthur Manuel and Russ Diabo.  As a public intellectual Diabo’s writing is available through the First Nations Strategic Bulletin, and is featured in a number of different blogs, and mainstream media outlets.  As I reviewed his public documents, I found Diabo to be explicit: the Harper government is implementing a “Termination Plan.”

Diabo stated, “Termination in this context means the ending of First Nations pre-existing sovereign status through federal coercion of First Nations into Land Claims and Self-Government Final Agreements that convert First Nations into municipalities, their reserves into fee simple lands and extinguishment of their Inherent, Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.” Diabo asserted that when bands willingly choose to enter into the Regime they also chose to enter into a path of assimilation.  This path, Diabo insists, reduces collective rights and emphasizes individual rights; effectively terminating our sovereignty.  Perhaps band leadership, recognizing that change is upon them, are also willing to agree to these federally imposed changes because of financial coercion.

In 2012, AANDC set aside dollars under their Economic Action Plan specifically to ensure bands were provided with monies for implementation.  Band leadership, with money in hand, become distracted by the busy-ness of developing “land codes” and “rule making” to such an extent that they “compromise their constitutional and international rights by consenting to final settlement agreements…” (Diabo).    Diabo insists that First Nations political bodies have become dependent on the negotiation funds provided by government to such an extent that they are unwilling to challenge this assimilation policy.  He cautions First Nations to consider what they are selling out on by following headlong into Harpers termination plan.  Any federal policy that intends to “support self-government” must be met with caution.  First Nations must assert their rights to self-determination and self-government on their terms; NOT for the convenience of a government that uses financial coercion, false consultation and confusion tactics like the omnibus bills to move forward on THEIR OWN agenda.

FNLM Regime a pathway to self-determination?  I don’t think so.  In our next edition we will continue to examine land management and begin a review of the politics of individual home ownership on reserves.

– Dr. Shauneen Pete

Dr. Shauneen Pete is an associate professor at the University of Regina and is the Executive Lead: Indigenization. Her courses are designed to trouble common-sense ideas about identity, citizenship and democracy.