10. Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management – Update Assessment of Socio/Economic Development Benefits, KPMG, February 27, 2014,
http://labrc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FNLM-Benefits-Review-Final-Report_Feb-27-2014.pdf↩

Forward by the Lands Advisory Board 

The Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management is historic. As First Nations, we governed our 

lands since time immemorial, long before the Indian Act was imposed on us. The completion of the 

Framework Agreement in 1996 represents the only time in Canada's history that a group of First Nations have 

joined together to design, negotiate and sign a government-to-government arrangement with the Federal 

Government to resume this governance. The Framework Agreement is the first real recognition of our inherent 

right to be self-governing. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs confirmed this in his 1999 address to the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:

“The Framework Agreement and this legislation provide signatory First Nations a legitimate, organized and 

controlled means of taking back the authority to manage their lands and resources at the community level 

and pass laws regarding how their land is developed, conserved, protected, used and administered.” 

The Framework Agreement is led by First Nations. The goal was to leave behind the paternalistic constraints 

of the Indian Act and resume our rightful governing authority over our reserve lands and resources under a 

Land Code designed and ratified by our members. We consider land governance to be the cornerstone of 

indigenous self-government and self-sufficiency. 

Framework Agreement First Nations are able to work efficiently with business investments that bring 

productive economic development opportunities to our Communities. We function “at the speed of business” 

as a result of our direct authority over reserve lands and natural resources. Financial institutions want to 

partner with Framework Agreement First Nations because we have clear, transparent and accountable 

governance structures in place, including rules and regulations that provide security and comfort to investors. 

We are able to provide certainty in land interests, low land transaction costs, and land laws that are recognized 

by courts and enforceable. 

The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada stated: 

 “This (Framework Agreement) means that First Nations can undertake projects without having to turn to me 

for their approval. They have the flexibility to move quickly when economic opportunities arrive or when 

partners approach them. In that way, they can get on with the task of creating jobs and encouraging 

economic growth in their Communities.” 

The First Nation Lands Advisory Board, which represents the Framework Agreement First Nations, and the 

Board’s technical body, the First Nations Land Management Resource Centre, were pleased to collaborate 

with Canada in 2009 and have the international firm of KPMG LLP conduct a study on the Framework 

Agreement costs and benefits. Now, four years later, KPMG is updating the benefits as of 2013. The Lands 

Advisory Board is very pleased to accept Phases I and II of the 2013 report. 

Phase III in 2014 will provide further evidence in support of Canada’s investment in the Framework 

Agreement. A case study approach will present in-depth examples of benefits in such areas as economic 

development and job creation; internal and external investments by the band; Community members, and third-

party partners; and enhanced relations with industry, other jurisdictions and financial institutions. 

. ________________________ ________________________________ 

Chief Robert Louie Chair

Chief Austin Bear Chair  

Lands Advisory Board First Nations Land Management Resource Centre Inc

Executive Summary 

This 2013 study updates the 2009 “Framework Agreement Benefit/Cost Review” initially conducted to 

estimate economic and social benefits accruing to First Nations who have ratified their land codes under the 

Framework Agreement on First Nations Land Management (hereafter called “operational First Nations” and 

“Framework Agreement”). Through the use of comparative analysis, this 2013 report captures the progress, 

incremental changes and experiences of 32 operational First Nations. 

The study findings indicate that 

 None of the First Nations surveyed in 2009 or 2013 reported a desire to revert back to the Indian 

Act – even if this were a possibility under the Framework Agreement, which it is not. 

 The benefits of operating under a First Nations’ land code are accruing to the Band. The study 

findings show the majority of reserve land being developed is land held in common by the Band for the 

benefit of all members, meaning that most benefits are flowing to the Band. 

 Governing under a land code helps First Nations to achieve the overall vision for their 

Communities. 

 Approximately 70% of First Nations participating in this study have a land use plan that is in place 

or in development. 

 Land Management activities are completed significantly faster by operational First Nations 

compared to previous processing under the Indian Act. In some cases this can be 72 times faster.

 Operational First Nations had developed their land governance processes and decision making 

systems to only a small extent under the Indian Act whereas significant development has occurred 

following ratification of their land code. 

 First Nations that have been operational between four and six years still feel they are transitioning. 

It takes as long as 10 years for participating First Nations to indicate they are in transition to a 

much smaller extent. 

 As first signs of positive change, many newly operational First Nations identify improvements to 

flexibility in the terms and conditions for land related transactions, improvements to protecting 

Community legal interests and improvement to protecting Community values for development.

 There is a point in time for operational First Nations when efficiency in carrying out processes 

begin to plateau, and where there is no further improvement, nor a need to improve (e.g. permit 

processing time, timelines for registration of instruments). As First Nations are operational longer, 

changes to some land management areas slow down or cease and First Nations have moved to 

identifying other elements as being improved. This is expected: As processes become established there 

is a diminishing need for First Nations to keep addressing the same areas. One expects a shift in 

elements being reported as improved. 

 Enhanced communication and building industry relations and reputation of the First Nation with 

investors are two areas noted to be better by the majority of operational First Nations. As First 

Nations establish land governance activities, other areas begin to improve such as relationships with 

municipal governments and financial institutions.

The Framework Agreement has led to new benefits for the most recent group of First Nations 

(Group B) who have become operational and further benefits are continuing for those approaching, 

or that have surpassed, 10 years in operation (Group A). Less incremental change occurs the 

longer First Nations have operated under their land codes. This is, in part, simply due to the rising 

baseline year-over-year. With limited or restricted pre land code economic development activity, the 

baseline was low, leading to significant growth during the time period between pre- and post- land code. 

By the time the survey was fielded in 2013, a new, higher baseline had been established by Group A. 

 There is an increase in interest and importance around forging relationships and partnerships with 

third parties and other external partners. 

 There is an increase in the percentage of operational First Nations reporting that businesses are 

owned by external partners.

 Operational First Nations are establishing new businesses on reserve. Although there is some 

variance, the data suggests that most businesses are small in size but established on reserve by 

entrepreneurs who require a small staff. 

 Significant Community investment continues among operational First Nations. In particular, they 

recognize the importance of investing in both the hard and soft infrastructure required to increase 

economic development. Internal investment remains strong for both the newly operational First Nations 

(Group B) and those that have been operational for many years (Group A). External investment is also 

recognized as an important factor in economic development, and is aligned with an emphasis on third 

party relationship building. An order of magnitude amount of internal and external investment achieved by 

all 32 operational First Nations participating at the time of this study is $270M. 

 Jobs are being created on reserve. An order of magnitude number of jobs created by all 32 operational 

First Nations participating in this study is approximately 4,000.

Overall, operational First Nations experience improved efficiencies and effectiveness in building their 

Communities. The Framework Agreement continues to be an enabler to First Nation Community and 

economic development efforts.