Using the Societies Act to return stolen land
Many settler organizations in Canada wonder how they can make meaningful strides on reconciliation with Indigenous Nations. Let me show you perhaps the easiest and most meaningful way you can do this. (I am not a lawyer, but there is no reason why this can’t work, and I’m currently working with a couple of organizations to make this happen).
In British Columbia, the Societies Act governs the operation of non-profit societies through which many organizations are operated. The Act has a whole section on what to do when the Society is needs to fold or be dissolved. Section 124 of this Act says that when a Society is dissolved, the assets of a Society can be distributed after all the debts are settled. Societies can make a by-law, kind of like an organizational Will, that specifies who receives these assets: Here is 124.2 (b).
The stipulation is that the entity receiving the asset needs to be a qualified recipient, which means another Society, or a co-op or a charity. And guess what? Most First Nations in Canada are qualified recipients. You can check here.
So what this means is that if your Society owns land as an asset you can create a by-law that says when you are dissolved as a Society the land you own is returned to the local First Nation in whose territory you are operating. You can make that by-law right now. And THAT means that if every Society operating in BC did that, over time, a lot of land would be returned to First Nations when it was no longer used by a Society. Of course you can always give that #LandBack now, but at the very least, you could make a by-law today.
There are many options you have about directing your assets after dissolution. You could simply give everything – land, buildings, and other assets to the local First Nations. Or if you are concerned about a continuity of care or purpose, you might imagine a future where your operations and purpose continue through another operating Society, but the land is returned to the First Nations and rented back, and you could specify that. The key is to work with the local First Nation to plan for that future together and explore what that means for the present day.
So THAT means 2 things:
1. when you tell the host Nation that you are doing this, you enter into a long term relationship that is all about how you will steward this land while you are using it so that as the last settler organization to own it, you return it in a healthy state, because it’s kind to return stolen property in at least as good a shape as it was in when it was taken. And,
2: when you do your territorial acknowledgement you can truly say “we are on Indigenous land and we are in relationship with the local host Nation to return this land to them.” This is such an easy thing to do. You can do it right now.
Imagine if this happened overnight. Over the next few years, land that is currently used to provide services and care for communities would flow back into the hands of First Nations and in the meantime relationships would be strengthened and responsibilities enacted. It’s such a powerful thing to do. And it is probably the easiest way to participate in the most meaningful action you can to engage in the reconciliation agenda. Give #LandBack.
(And here is some good legal advice from lawyers who want to help you dissolve your Society well.)
Interesting premise. The Registrar of Companies (BC) keeps track of registered societies and I wonder if they have data on what this might add up to. Although, you never have to list assets when registering, so they may not. I believe with a charity, assets have to be distributed to other charities with the same objectives. Finally, if a First Nation is eligible to receive such a gift/donation, and I’m not sure how that would work (co-op or charity?) there would still need to be a transfer of title and, although I am not an expert by any means, isn’t there a stipulation in the hoary old Indian Act (even the name is offensive!) about owning property, or is that limited to on reserves?
Thanks for your comment Judy. First Nations are qualified reciepoemta for charitable donations of money and property and First Nations government certainly can, and do, own private land with fee simple title. In that sense they are no different for other corporate owners of private land, subject to local planning decisions and so on. But as charities First Nations governments are able to hold and use assets. And the Societies Act doesn’t specify that the use needs to be tied to the transfer, only that the recipient is classified as a charity.