Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 1 - Wednesday, August 29, 2001

2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
MINUTES AND HANSARD

Present: J. Les, MLA (Chair); P. Nettleton, MLA (Deputy Chair); V. Anderson, MLA; B. Belsey, MLA; D. Chutter, MLA; M. Hunter, MLA; B. Lekstrom, MLA; D. MacKay, MLA; G. Trumper, MLA; R. Visser MLA

1. As there was not yet a Chair to the Committee, the Clerk to the Committee called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

2. Resolved, that John Les, MLA, serve as Chair of the Committee. (B. Lekstrom, MLA)

3. Resolved, that Paul Nettleton, MLA, serve as Deputy Chair of the Committee. (V. Anderson, MLA)

4. The Committee discussed its Terms of Reference, including logistical and procedural details of its inquiry.

5. The Committee reviewed its available staff resources.

6. Resolved, that the Committee proceed in-camera to discuss staff resources and related issues. (G. Trumper, MLA) The Committee met in-camera from 2:11 p.m. through 2:41 p.m.

7. The Committee agreed to meet next Tuesday, September 4, to interview applicants for the position of Expert Consultant to the Committee.

8. The Committee agreed that Paul Nettleton, MLA, and Rod Visser, MLA, would attend the upcoming Pacific Business and Law Institute conference titled Solving Aboriginal Claims: A New Focus.

9. The Committee agreed to meet next Wednesday, September 5, to continue its review of its Terms of Reference.

10. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 3:03 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair		1

Terms of Reference		1

Staff Resources		6
	Personnel issues [in camera]	7

Meeting Schedule		7

Pacific Business and Law Institute Conference		8

Chair:	* John Les (Chilliwack-Sumas L)
Deputy Chair:	* Paul Nettleton (Prince George–Omineca L)
Members:	* Val Anderson (Vancouver-Langara L) * Bill Belsey (North Coast L) * Dave Chutter (Yale-Lillooet L) * Mike Hunter (Nanaimo L) * Blair Lekstrom (Peace River South L) * Dennis MacKay (Bulkley Valley–Stikine L) * Gillian Trumper (Alberni-Qualicum L) * Rod Visser (North Island L) * denotes member present

Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Committee Staff:	Tamara Little (Consultant) Audrey Chan (Assistant Researcher)

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Good afternoon, members. Welcome to the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. My name is Kate Ryan-Lloyd, and I am Clerk to this committee. As there is not yet a Chair to this committee, I hereby call for nominations to the position of Chair.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: All right. Then I will call for further nominations three times. Are there any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Hearing none, I'll put the question on the motion. All those in favour of Mr. Les in the position of Chair say aye.

J. Les (Chair): The next item of business, then, would be the election of a vice-Chair.

J. Les (Chair): Are there any further nominations? Calling for a second time: are there any further nominations for vice-Chair? And for a third and final time: are there any further nominations? Hearing none, I would declare Paul Nettleton elected as vice-Chair of the committee.
Let me say, as well, thank you for nominating me as the Chair of this committee. This will be, I'm sure it's somewhat redundant to say, a very interesting experience for all of us as we embark on the assignment for this committee over the next several months, in particular. I know that each of you has a particular interest in the subject matter at hand, and I'm very pleased to see the geographic distribution in terms of where each of us is from in different areas of the province. I think that will lend a lot to the insight we need to bring to the matters at hand. I look forward to the next months ahead as we set about our assignment.

J. Les (Chair): In your agenda package you have the committee terms of reference. They were passed by the Legislature just a few days ago. I guess I would throw the floor open. Is there any discussion from committee members on those terms of reference?

B. Lekstrom: Just a question on the statement that the committee report their recommendations to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 30, 2001. If the Legislature is not sitting at that time, does this create anything? Or is the report just submitted, and then at the next sitting it's put forward?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Certainly, I'd be happy to clarify. The practice in British Columbia has been that the House is not currently sitting at the time the committee has finalized its report. A copy can be deposited with the office of the Clerk. It is thereby made a public document. When the House resumes sitting, it's the practice, generally, that the Chair of that committee would present the report to the House. By depositing it in the office of the Clerk prior to that, it serves the function of making it a public document at that time.

J. Les (Chair): In other words, it'll be deemed to be presented to the Legislature even though it's not sitting.

D. MacKay: A question here, where it says: "In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the Select Standing Committee…." Do we have a list of the powers previously conferred?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yes. It's generally the practice in British Columbia, on the first day of a legislative session, that there is a motion made and approved by the House to confer powers on the committees of the House. I believe that in the current session, that motion was made by the Premier. It basically empowered legislative committees to summon persons and papers, as I believe the language states, meaning that witnesses can be summoned to appear before the committee and also that any documentation that is required by the committee in the course of its inquiry can be ordered by the committee to appear. Those are both extensions of parliamentary privilege enabling each of you, as members of this committee, to do the job that you've been asked to do on behalf of the assembly.

M. Hunter: Just to complete this, then. Would you mind — not today, but at some point — digging out that motion passed in the House?

M. Hunter: I'm not sure I could find it very easily in my collection of papers. That would be helpful, just so we all have a clear understanding of….

M. Hunter: I'm not sure that in my collection of papers I could find it very easily. That would be helpful, just so we all have a clear understanding of the powers that we do have. Thank you.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I may be getting ahead of us here, but a question that comes to mind with respect to the terms of reference, the first subheading, (a) — that is, the appointment of subcommittees and the like…. Is there any plan afoot to divide this committee into subcommittees? I'm thinking now in terms of covering the province over the course of the next couple of months. Has any thought been given to that? Or are we going to be travelling the province as a whole?

J. Les (Chair): That's a fair question. Obviously, we collectively haven't given any thought to that, but I suspect that individually some of us have, and I certainly have. I haven't formed any conclusions on that matter.
I think we all anticipate, given the relatively short time frame in which this committee has to report to the Legislature, that to do an adequate job of consultation with the public in British Columbia, it might possibly be necessary to split the committee in two at some point and work in that manner. I suspect that as this meeting progresses, we might develop some consensus around that. Certainly, at the next meeting of this committee I think we can start making those kinds of decisions.

B. Belsey: On the terms of reference, "(e) to permit minority opinions in a report of the committee." Will that be on or before the 30th that we would anticipate a minority opinion?

J. Les (Chair): Perhaps I should put that in a bit of context, first of all, by saying that it is unusual for committee terms of reference to include provision for a minority report. The origin of this one, I think — Mr. Anderson could confirm this — has its roots in the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that was in place with the previous parliament, where there was a provision made specifically for a minority report to be produced, which the then opposition members of that committee did in fact produce. I think this is seen, as much as anything, as a quid pro quo.
If there are minority opinions that emerge, obviously, by the terms of reference of this committee, those will be accepted. In terms of when those minority reports would come forward, my anticipation is that that would be roughly at about the same time as the final report of this committee is produced, at least in terms of this section of our work. I'm fully anticipating that after November 30, there will be other things that this committee will be asked to do.

D. Chutter: The Clerk mentioned that this committee has the ability to summons. Could that be defined? What is meant by that ability to summons?

           K. Ryan-Lloyd: Generally speaking…. I was just checking under our standing orders in the book titled Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia by the Clerk of the House, George MacMinn, and his further explanation of the powers of the legislative committees within that. Particularly within standing order 68, it outlines the specific powers which Mr. Hunter was asking about, in terms of the committee's ability to send for persons, papers and records.
           Generally speaking, committees have been adequately able to fulfil their responsibilities by inviting witnesses to attend. The ability of committees to summon witnesses is one that has not been fully exercised very frequently in Canadian jurisdictions. But certainly it would relate to the ability, as I mentioned, of this committee to do the work that it's been tasked to do.
           I'm not sure, given the complexities of summoning reluctant witnesses, for example, how hastily that might be achieved, given the committee time lines. Certainly the standing orders and practice in British Columbia and elsewhere are very clear. This committee, once it's tasked by the Legislative Assembly to undertake an inquiry, should see no obstacles in fulfilling its mandate. I think that's what the standing order is always intended to do.

D. MacKay: That having been said, I would suspect that it's rather rare for any standing committee to use coercion to bring forward testimony.

G. Trumper: On the question of the membership of the committee, was the invitation extended to the opposition?

G. Trumper: They have said that they're not participating and that they're going to set up another system of doing it. I think it probably should be noted somewhere in the record that they were invited, and if they decide to come somewhere along the line, that invitation should still be open. What would be the procedure on that? Is there anything written?

J. Les (Chair): Procedurally, I'm not sure whether that invitation stands. I am not sure. It is clear that the opposition was asked to participate in this committee, and the record of debate in the Legislature will show that they declined that invitation. Should they change their mind, I'd be guided by staff as to whether or not they could elect at some point in the future to join the committee.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: That's in fact the case. Membership on all legislative committees is determined by the Special Committee of Selection. That committee has a present mandate to meet outside of regular sessions of the

House. It can meet during a period of adjournment, which we have now just entered into. I believe that if the opposition members did opt to become members of this committee, it would take a quick meeting of the selection committee to expedite that, and then they would in fact be full members of the committee.

V. Anderson: The terms of reference don't really say how we go about it. They say what we're going to go about. I'm wondering if we have any initial guidelines. In reading the documents in presentation from the Attorney General, they don't say either. It seems to me that we're to come up with questions. But how are we to arrive at the questions that we're supposed to come up with? Particularly if we were going to divide down, we would need common times and frames of reference, if we were in separate committees going around, as to how we arrive at these — again in a short time frame.

J. Les (Chair): There's no question that the terms of reference are not terribly prescriptive. I tend to look at that as a positive thing. It's easier to do your work when it's very carefully prescribed what it is you must do and how you must do it. I think it's better to indeed have a more organic process, where the committee can decide how it wants to go about its work. There's one thing that is for sure: on November 30 we must produce a report. It seems to me that in the three months we have to do that, we have probably a few weeks and maybe as much as a month to prepare the conditions whereby a consultation process would prove to be effective. Then we've got roughly a month, give or take, to undertake that consultation process and then the final month to work on our final report. We'll produce what we've been asked to do.
Those are in very rough terms the time lines as I see them, which would see us very busy in October in a consultation process. I'm not sure if that completely answers your question, but it's an early stab at it.

V. Anderson: To follow that up, it would seem to me that if we were out consulting only one month out of three, it wouldn't look to the public as if we'd been involved in consultation. It seems to me that we have to have at least six weeks of consultation — two weeks of preparation and two weeks to wind up — in order, even with that, to consult across the province with all of the different groups. I know it's a time frame, but I think we need to give the appearance at least, as much as we can, that we are out in the public.

J. Les (Chair): Another idea is that in order to lengthen that consultation period, there are likely some groups that would indicate early on that they wish to meet with us. I think we could take advantage of some of those early invitations to get those kinds of meetings done, perhaps, as early as a couple of weeks from now.
The other process I was talking about that perhaps might be appropriate in October is one where we would generally go to communities and convene public meetings. It seems to me that it's going to take a bit of time to properly prepare for those — not only for us to be prepared but for communities to, first of all, be aware that the committee is coming to their community and is going to be looking for their input. To generate some of that public discussion and awareness, I think, is a real challenge that we're going to have to work on.

V. Anderson: There's one other thing, while I think of it. In preparing for that, is there a way in which we can indicate to people that we would at least prefer to hear what is part of the referendum questions rather than strong points of view that we're not supposed to be having a referendum at all?

           J. Les (Chair): I think it's going to be important for us to frame the discussion, if you like, that we are indeed looking for suggestions. How can we improve the treaty process? What are people's points of view with respect to having watched, let's say, eight years of treaty making? What has worked and what hasn't?
           In other words, we want a constructive discussion not about whether or not to engage in treaty making, because it's very clear — constitutionally and otherwise — that treaty making must be done. What we're about is improving that process, re-engaging British Columbians and hopefully reinvigorating and re-energizing that process.
           So it will be an important part of the next month, in particular, to make sure that message gets out there. Our support staff will need to play, I think, an important role in doing that, as will all members of the Legislature in all the various ridings around the province. We need to think about how we can make sure that we engage all those resources, as well, to help us do our work.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): In response to Val's queries, as well, Mr. Chair, you had made reference to framing the terms of reference. I think that a partial answer, at least, to starting this process very soon would be an invitation for written submissions. That is something I would expect that we could start sometime prior to the tour.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I know, having just completed a task force reviewing pine beetles — which is quite different from what we're doing — it was very helpful, not only prior to beginning our tour but sometime afterwards when we had to sit down and write a report, to review those written submissions. They proved very helpful. I would expect there would be a number of written submissions from various groups that could really assist in doing just that.

J. Les (Chair): You're absolutely right. When the time comes that we're doing the public meetings around the province, even then I would encourage people not only to make a verbal presentation but to use that verbal presentation to summarize a written

presentation which they would bring with them. There may well be meetings where we're not going to be able to give people half an hour of speaking time, for example. Five or ten minutes can be very limiting in terms of allowing people to express all of their thoughts.

M. Hunter: In the same vein, in order to maximize the ability of the public to present their views to this committee, is it within the realm of possibility that the government's website might be used as a vehicle?

J. Les (Chair): I've been thinking of that as well. I think that to be most effective, the committee should possibly develop its own website so that people have direct access to a website up front, so that isn't hard to find in the haystack of the overall government website. People are getting better at surfing the Web all the time, but there are still a lot of us out there who like as direct access as can possibly be arranged.

M. Hunter: If you're thinking along those lines, the actual technical details of an address and so on don't bother me as much as the idea that we use that technology to invite submissions to the committee.

J. Les (Chair): The Clerk informs me that there is already a website for the standing committee. About the only thing that graces it at this point is a list of the membership and terms of reference. There's at least a start there. We need to work then, of course, on how we can make that useful to the public.

R. Visser: I just wanted to be clear that minority reports have to come from members of the committee that participate in the process.

R. Visser: So we won't be accepting minority reports from outside. We can read them and refer to them but not….

J. Les (Chair): If you, for example, chose not to come to any meetings after today but on November 30 you had a minority report, I guess you have the right to do that. But I suspect you won't be doing that.

R. Visser: Oh no, that's not what I mean. I just meant people from outside that chose not to come to this meeting can issue their own report, and that wouldn't be part of ours.

J. Les (Chair): No. The committee is the group of people that we have here today, unless, as previously described, there was a change that was engineered by the Committee of Selection.

D. Chutter: I know the Clerk referred to this already, but the decision-making process or the ability of the member who declined the opportunity to sit on this committee…. To allow that person to join the committee at a later date…. That member has said, I believe, that they plan to go and do their own public inquiry. I'm concerned that at a much later date their privilege to sit on this committee could be abused if they came in at the last minute and submitted their own minority opinion without having sat on this committee, other than the last few sessions perhaps. Could you clarify that? Is there the ability of that member to join this committee at a later date without approval of this committee?

J. Les (Chair): As the Clerk has pointed out, that is the purview of the Committee of Selection. If other members of the Legislature wish to join the committee, including the opposition, they would have to make that appeal to the Committee of Selection, and it would be their decision as to whether to make another appointment. If that appointment were to be made, let's say, on the 29th of November — somebody used the extreme example — that would be that, and the member would then be a member of this committee. If they chose at that point to produce a minority report, I would suggest to you that the validity of that report might not be as it could be if that member had been a member of this committee all along.

D. MacKay: It's just a matter of process here that I'm concerned about. Our mandate says that we're to give all British Columbians a say on the principles. I'm assuming that includes our native population. If such is the case, are we going to meet separately with the natives? Are they going to be invited to participate in open meetings at a particular venue, or are we going to be meeting separately with them? If we're going to meet separately with them, given the number of bands throughout the province, that is going to be a huge task. Who are we going to select to hear from, and who's going to be left out? If we are going to meet with them separately, I'm wondering if we should be sending out a letter of invitation or contacting them by some other means to see if they wish to participate in the process that we're about to embark on.

J. Les (Chair): First of all, I wouldn't want to leave the impression that we're going to have the ability to meet with every first nation in British Columbia, as indeed we won't be able to meet in every community in the province.

Further, I would suggest that the committee needs to be fairly flexible in terms of whether we meet only in publicly convened meetings or whether the committee is prepared to travel to first nations communities. I think we need to be open to that. I expect that we will be doing that.
But I don't have too many preconceived notions at this point. I know that we're starting to get some early expressions of interest from the chief of the Kamloops Indian band, for example, who has expressed an interest in providing input to the work of the committee. I expect there will be further expressions of interest like that, and I think we would want to take advantage of

them so that we can gather as much input from the first nations communities as well. As we travel around the province eventually, let's take advantage of all legitimate opportunities within the constraints of the time, effort and energy available.

D. MacKay: Further to that, I would just like to add that if we are going to meet with the natives, we should not exclude those that are not part of the executive councils of the bands. In other words, if we're going to meet with the natives, we should be meeting non-elected people from the villages. I think we'll get a different perspective when we talk to them versus talking to the elected people in the villages.

J. Les (Chair): I think the same is generally true if we go to any community in British Columbia. It is likely, for example, that we might have a presentation from the mayor of a community, and that's wonderful and to be encouraged. But I don't only want to hear from the mayor; I want to hear from all residents. And the same is true in first nations communities. We want broad input and as many perspectives as possible. So I expect that will be the case.

V. Anderson: Just following that up, I agree with the comment. My assumption would be that these are all open meetings.

V. Anderson: And if we happen to be meeting in a band area, it would be open to non-band people to come to the meeting and vice versa.

V. Anderson: So it would all be open meetings, and no one would be excluded…

V. Anderson: …from any of the meetings. We wouldn't have any private meetings per se.

J. Les (Chair): No. It may happen. I'm not sure, but I'm not anticipating that at this point.

G. Trumper: Just on that particular issue. Following up on the comment that we want to try and meet not just with the elected representatives of the bands, because there are differing opinions, I do think we should be looking at a mechanism where we can get that input from the non-elected people. I understand what the prior speaker just said. There are groups among the aboriginal community who just don't come out publicly with a view opposite to the elected council, partly due to the hierarchy system that they have. I'm well aware of that. I guess, specifically, to address a particular segment of the community…. There is a large segment of the aboriginal community who have concerns, and that's the women in many cases — not all cases, but in many cases — of the aboriginal community. So I think we have to address that issue of people having the opportunity to be able to speak to us who might have a little concern about being at a public meeting voicing their views and opinions. We have to address that very carefully, because it is a public process.

J. Les (Chair): Yeah. I'm aware of those kinds of sensitivities, and I guess we have to retain some degree of flexibility to be able to respond appropriately to those kinds of unique circumstances. But my overall bent would be to ensure, wherever possible, that the meetings are open and public. In the communities of which you speak, I have seen people making their views known in a public forum. But I'm also aware that those views emerge somewhat more freely in a different context from time to time.

V. Anderson: I may be changing the topic a little bit, for the moment. On the terms of reference, there's been a lot of discussion about the kind and number of questions and whether there are questions which are a yes or no or questions which are a preference — "yes, I agree" or "I disagree" or "I strongly agree" — so that we get a flavour of the kind of consensus which a yes or no doesn't really tell you.
I myself think I look somewhere in that kind of area, where there are questions where people can express strength of opinion on a variety of issues. We get an overall picture rather than a cold yes or no, which really doesn't tell you a great deal. Whether there's a variety of areas we want to touch or how we go about that, it seems to me we need to begin to think about that.

J. Les (Chair): Yeah, and I think you finished it off well by saying "begin to think about that," as indeed I have been doing a little bit. I certainly have no conclusions at this point, even in my own mind.
Throughout the next several months I think all of us want to be thinking about how we can best make a recommendation to government in terms of the structure of the questions and the kinds of questions. You know, we need to do the very best job we can to make the very best recommendation we can to government. I want the end of this process, presumably early next spring, to be one that is useful to the process of treaty making and getting on with that business.

V. Anderson: I was wondering if there were models to follow from other types of hearings that could be a guideline for us, ones that have been tried and tested. If so, how would we go about finding these?

J. Les (Chair): Certainly a very good thought. I think we are going to have to retain some expertise to help us through that process. Again, I don't have any preconceived notions as to where that will come from, but we should look for that kind of expertise. It will be very important — one of the key pieces of work that we do.

M. Hunter: I don't disagree with what Val has said. There is a fair degree of experience with referenda. By the way, I assume we're still on terms of reference, so this is okay.

           M. Hunter: All right.
           There's obviously a fair degree of experience with referenda in a number of democratically based countries, but I also think that the referendum project here may be somewhat different than prior experience in Canada and in other jurisdictions with respect to the potential breadth of questions. I do agree that we should…. None of us, as far as I know, is a political scientist, and I think we do need some advice on referendum design, some advice on yes/no versus preferential. I'm sure there are statistics and studies that would be helpful in that.
           While I have the floor, if I may, I want to change channels even further. I want to address the issue of the physical holding of a referendum. Is it your understanding that we not only are expected to do what we've talked about so far but are expected to come up at this stage of our report with some details of how a referendum might be held?
           What is bugging me, frankly, is a conversation I had with a district returning officer in Nanaimo a couple of weeks ago. She commented to me that the Elections B.C. office basically lets all the DROs go, I believe, at the end of November. This sparked questions in my mind about how, physically, you put together a provincewide referendum that requires returning officers or some kind of election officials.
           Is that part of what we are expected to do between now and November 30? Or would that work be assigned by the Legislature to, for example, Elections B.C. at a later date? Have you had any thoughts or discussions on that issue?

J. Les (Chair): Well, I've had some thoughts on that matter just as a point of general interest. With respect to the work of this committee, I think a relatively literal reading of the terms of reference would lead me to conclude that that is not a central aspect of the work of this committee. It says quite clearly that we're to inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions which the government of British Columbia should submit to voters.

The mechanism by which those questions will be submitted to the residents of British Columbia is, I think, somewhat separate. The committee may well want to comment on that as somewhat of a side issue, but I don't see it as being central to our terms of reference and what we need to report on by November 30.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): With respect to Mike's earlier comments in and around, as I understand it, looking at other jurisdictions that have experience with referenda. In my experience here in the House with select standing committees, the Clerk of Committees office has proven very helpful in terms of compiling information that's instructive and helpful and that provides some point of reference for committee members. The thought occurs to me that they at least could compile that kind of information for us and start doing that now so that when we come to write the report, we can refer to that material. I think that's a very good point.

J. Les (Chair): I appreciate that input, recognizing that yourself and Mr. Anderson are the only two incumbent members here with any degree of experience. In my brief discussion with the Clerk the other day I soon became aware that there is a resource there that this committee will be able to utilize. Certainly, I think we'll tap that whenever possible.

V. Anderson: Two of the items you've also touched upon are the schedule of travelling, the organization of that, and the budget. I don't know that we have a term of reference for any set budget that we work in. No doubt we're going to have to provide a budget to someone and get some clearance on it somewhere down the line.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: I can speak to that point. Our office will endeavour to prepare a preliminary business plan for your review at the next meeting, given that it's usually very useful for us to do so after an initial meeting of the committee when we begin to hear from the members themselves, their expectations in terms of travel and other costs that will be associated with this inquiry. Given that and the further discussions that I'm sure we'll have today about those things, I will endeavour to present a draft business plan for your review and amendment at the next meeting.
The business plan will include draft time lines for the committee's inquiry, including a travel schedule — a very preliminary one, I'm sure. It will also include a budget which has not yet been specified in any way but which is really up to this committee to determine, as it is required to fulfil its mandate.

J. Les (Chair): Any other discussion on the terms of reference? We'll consider that concluded for now, then.

J. Les (Chair): I'm going to suggest that before we get into a discussion in terms of the committee meeting schedule, we go into item 5 first of all, which I think will have some impact on our meeting schedule. In terms of No. 5, again I'll ask the Clerk to describe in general terms the resources that are available in her office, and then we'll go on to the next phase of business.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: As the returning members will know, the office of the Clerk of Committees, of which I am one part, offers three levels of support to legislative committees. We offer administrative support primarily,

in terms of assistance to members in scheduling meeting times, circulating agendas, preparing minutes of meetings and other logistical details which might revolve around travel arrangements and other accommodations of that kind.
           Secondly, we also provide some measure of research support. We have a generalist research team which is currently managing to support the work of a number of committees. We will have some measure of research support available for this committee.
           Finally, through my role in particular we have procedural support to this committee to ensure that this committee meets the parameters and practices of the Legislature, to make sure that we are functioning according to the rules of the House as much as possible and as practical within a committee environment.
           That's basically an overview of the general services that our office provides. As was mentioned earlier, the committee very well may wish to consider further technical expertise and advisers on the nature of the task before us in terms of experts in the aboriginal constitutional areas or related areas.

J. Les (Chair): Are there any further questions on the resources available in the Clerk's office?

We should move on, then. I had circulated earlier two CVs. I think it's appropriate that we deal with those in a brief in-camera session, as they do involve the discussion of personnel issues. I suspect I would need a motion at this point to move the next portion of the meeting in camera. Moved by Gillian and seconded by Mike.

J. Les (Chair): In the previous portion of the meeting we discussed the hiring of personnel for this committee. A decision has been made to have an interview process next Tuesday at 10:30 — two individuals, an hour each. All members of the committee that can be here will be involved in that interview process. Is that a fair summary of the discussion?

           J. Les (Chair): Okay.
           Moving right along, the reason I wanted to have that discussion before we went into the meeting schedule was that I think the staff person we hire is going to assist us in determining what that meeting schedule is going to be. We've now set out that we're meeting Tuesday to do interviews, and we'll be meeting again — a full meeting of this committee — next week, on Wednesday.
           That's about as far as I'd want to schedule at this point, because we may well be — and I expect we will be — meeting frequently throughout September in Victoria to get the process well underway. We may well be meeting during the month of September in selected locations around the province. As I said earlier, I believe that we have some indications from aboriginal communities, and perhaps others as well, that express a direct interest in meeting with the committee. Perhaps we can get some of that done during the month of September and the more general public meetings throughout the month of October — just as a general thought.
           In terms of the committee meeting schedule, are there any other thoughts on that item?

B. Lekstrom: Just one, following through. We talk about September. The UBCM week…. I know that probably many legislative committees would exempt that week because of the attendance of so many elected municipal people as well. They are just one part of the people that will attend these meetings, but it would be awful if we were in an area and the elected officials were in Vancouver during that week. Just for consideration of the Chair.

J. Les (Chair): It just occurred to me, as you mentioned that, that it might not be a bad place where we make a room available and ourselves available to municipal political representatives to provide us with their thoughts. We may well be able to arrange that. I think it'd be a great idea to avail ourselves of that opportunity.

G. Trumper: Thinking along those lines, it might be worth having a breakfast meeting or something. I mean, it's a jam-packed session, and 7 o'clock in the morning usually is the only time to get a spare…to at least tell them what we're doing. We're not going to have time to sort of have a spot on the agenda to do it.

J. Les (Chair): No. I was just going to suggest that your old friend Richard Taylor might be loath to now make changes, at this late date, to his conference agenda. But we can try it.

M. Hunter: With due respect to my colleagues who've been in civic politics, that's not everybody, you guys. I suspect that UBCM is an opportunity, but it may not be a real in-depth one.
I really wanted to intervene, though, Mr. Chair, to suggest that I think there is a group that we might want to schedule around. That is the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, 31 people who represent pretty well all walks of economic life in this province. Having sat on that committee for ten long years, I can attest to the quality of the people and their interest in this subject, obviously. I think it would be appropriate if we could find out what the schedule of TNAC is during September and October. It's a place we can go, take

half a day and get a wide range of educated opinions. I think it would be appropriate.

J. Les (Chair): I agree. That group generally represents some very good firsthand experience with the treaty process, and I'm sure there's a lot of input we can gain from them and other similar groups as well.
Going back to your first comment about the former associates of Gillian Trumper, Blair Lekstrom and myself, they don't represent the be-all and end-all of public opinion in British Columbia. But they are definitely people who are influential in their communities, and I'm sure they can reflect back to us what their communities are thinking about. Obviously, I think most, if not all, of us will be at the UBCM convention. I'm just trying to not only be there but to put the time to some productive use as well.

V. Anderson: I wholeheartedly agree, because I think there's a message that those people can take back as well as the messages they can give to us.

V. Anderson: I don't know whether we're going to have a tentative description of what we're about in meetings. That could be made available through them at that time as part of the public announcement that we're available and that people can contact us.

G. Trumper: Just following up on that, I think TNAC is an excellent idea, having been there. Certainly at the local municipal level I think it might be worthwhile. They might be able to give us some advice about how to deal with what the issues are, particularly because we're covering the whole of the province, because there are different issues in different parts of the province.
But I wonder if there are other groups out there as well, some representatives from various groups, that maybe we can have an opportunity to meet with. That would enable us to utilize our time better. If we're going to be in Vancouver during that week, is there not another group there that we might find it worthwhile making a presentation to, talking to and getting some feedback?

J. Les (Chair): I have no doubt that that is exactly what will happen. That's why I'm anxious that as early as next week, we get staff on the ground who can work with the Clerk's office here to get exactly that kind of process going.
Between now and next Wednesday we all need to do some brainstorming in our own minds in terms of the TNAC type of example. I'm sure there are many others, and people in various regions of the province, that you can think of. Just make a mental note of people that we can usefully dialogue with over the next several months, and bring them forward to the next meeting.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly, and I agree with the TNAC as well. Another group that comes to my mind is the religious community, who have had a lot to do with and are very interested in the whole area.

V. Anderson: Viola Thomas, United Native Nations. They would very much like that.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, we've got one other item of business that the Clerk's office passed on to me the other day: a conference that's coming up in Vancouver on September 27 and 28.

J. Les (Chair): We are all in Vancouver. Gillian, you'll be familiar with these guys: the Pacific Business and Law Institute.

J. Les (Chair): And you are as well.
They are putting another conference on. It's entitled "Solving Aboriginal Claims: A New Focus." I was just looking specifically for the program. Right on the front cover there are four bullets. The first one is the post-election treaty process and available solutions — post-election, of course, being post–May 16th election. The second bullet is the referendum. Third is different approaches to the treaty process and, fourth, delinking of jurisdiction, the relationship of governance to lands and resources.

As usual, there are a variety of speakers. It's co-chaired by Barbara Fisher from Blake Cassels Grayden in Vancouver and Alec Robertson, who's with Davis and Co. The faculty includes many of the usual suspects. Nonetheless, they're quite an impressive array of people: Don Bell from the district of North Van, Denis de Keruzec, Barry Dewar, Chief Brian Eli, Dan George, Bill Wilson, Edward John, Roslyn Kunin, Patrick Macklem, Stephen Owen, Tim Raybould, Miles Richardson, Art Sterritt and Chief Bill Williams.
Obviously, this was passed along because the subject matter is, at least in part, of interest to the subject matter of this standing committee. The registration fee for this conference is $895 plus GST, totalling $957.65, which includes conference, conference materials, a light breakfast and refreshments during the day.

M. Hunter: The province doesn't pay GST, I guess.
I said when you started that I had been to these things, and they are very well marketed. They happen about once every two months. Frankly, the utility of

those sessions from my experience — and I've been to a number of them in my previous life — is being overstated by the advertising material. I honestly could not justify spending $750 of the taxpayers' money, or whatever the price is now. I think you could argue that it's a place to meet all of these people, but they are not the conferences to do the business that I think we're charged with. I would politely decline to attend.

J. Les (Chair): Like yourself, I've been to a number of meetings sponsored by this organization, and I would never suggest that we all go there en masse. By the same token, I think that it would be a mistake for no one to be there. I believe that we need to know what is being said at a conference like this. I think it would be rather foolish of us not to avail ourselves of that knowledge.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I'm going to be crass and talk about money. Are you suggesting that there's a budget available for attending a conference of that sort?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Previous legislative committees have sent delegations, albeit small delegations, to conferences of this kind. It's certainly something that I can incorporate into this committee's budget and business plan, if the members so wish.

D. Chutter: In spite of the cost, I would find it difficult to go myself. It's the Thursday and Friday, I believe, of September which is UBCM week. Perhaps as a minimum, if somebody went or if nobody goes, we could get the minutes of that segment on the referendum as reference.

J. Les (Chair): I'm not sure if they produce minutes. There's usually a conference binder that is produced, but it doesn't necessarily convey the proceedings of the conference.

D. MacKay: That same weekend of UBCM week there's another convention taking place, and I'm already registered for that. I won't be attending.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I'm prepared to attend. I appreciate some of the comments that Mike had made earlier, but I do know some of these folks personally. I'm very interested in what at least a couple of them have to say. I have an interest; I think I have the time. I'm interested in attending. For those members who don't have the opportunity to go, I'll report back to them if there's anything there of any interest or assistance to other members.

J. Les (Chair): Might I suggest that we authorize by resolution the attendance of Paul Nettleton at this particular conference with a report back to this committee. Moved by Rod. Is that a second?

J. Les (Chair): Well, I would like to, but as we discussed a moment ago, it overlaps with UBCM. You see, this is a Thursday and Friday. I would see the more useful day at UBCM likely being the Thursday, with a complete overlap with this one, which is the heavier day of this two-day affair.

J. Les (Chair): There's another thought that crossed my mind a moment ago. I'd forgotten already. If we hire a consultant, an individual, maybe she should go as well. I wouldn't want to impose that on them — you know, not even having hired anybody yet — but I think we should leave it open to that as well. In that case you might want to send as many as two people, but I'll leave that for the committee to reflect on.

R. Visser: I wouldn't mind seeing the program, and I don't think we should send staff to a conference of this nature. I don't think that's…. With this sensitivity, we should probably send members of the committee as observers. That would be an opinion of mine.

J. Les (Chair): I would want to, but I don't think it's wise of me to double-book myself, which I see that I would be doing.

B. Belsey: No, I have other things to do, so I can't go either. But I believe there are others in here. I don't think anybody has really asked if there's anybody that wants to.

J. Les (Chair): For that reason alone it might be useful. People like Mike and, I confess, myself as well…. You know, you get a little jaded sometimes. I've

got part of a bookshelf full of binders from the Pacific Business and Law Institute, you know. I've been to quite a number of these. Some have been very useful, and I think it's honest to say that. But with others, you go away and say: "Oh well, it was just regurgitation."

B. Belsey: I've been to one, and it was excellent. You're right. Some must be good; some must be bad. I just think it's important that we find out who wants to go, and if we can accommodate them, we should send them.

J. Les (Chair): That's right. There is a particular emphasis here on: okay, we're past the last provincial election, and we're going into a referendum. I think it would be an absolute mistake for some representation from this committee not to be there.

J. Les (Chair): So how many should we authorize? Paul has indicated he's willing to go. Val, were you indicating you'd like to go as well?

J. Les (Chair): I'm not really hung up here. If three people want to go, then three people go. I'm not one for throwing taxpayers' dollars around. On the other hand, I also don't want to limit the opportunity for people to expose themselves appropriately to all the knowledge we can pick up.

M. Hunter: Well, Mr. Chair, I just want to register my dissent. I admire the institute and the sponsoring companies for doing the job of organizing and marketing that they do, and I don't want to prejudge the results of any conference. But it raises the question: if some other group decides they want to put on a conference, are we obligated to go to that too? I don't think so. I think that we have to be our own masters.
I think that if people are going to go, there should at least be an approach to the organizers to see if they will donate two or three spaces to this committee. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. This is taxpayers' dollars that we're spending, so I have a lot more difficulty spending $1,400 or $2,100 for that conference. I think that at the very least, a request should be made of the organizers, expressing an interest and…. Would they donate space? They do that from time to time.

V. Anderson: I would prefer that Rod goes. I've been there before, so I have a pretty good…. And I've heard most of these people, so it's not a priority for me to go there. I'd prefer that Rod go and have that opportunity. I think it's important.

J. Les (Chair): Right. Have we got a consensus, recognizing all the comments of the last ten minutes or so, that Rod and Paul be authorized to go? Can you go quietly on that one, Mike?

J. Les (Chair): Okay. So ordered. Any other business to come before the committee today? Seeing none….

V. Anderson: Just a comment. It might be useful for those who haven't had the opportunity to have the document from the Aboriginal committee that did travel the province — the reports — so that people could read both it and the minority report. It would give a flavour of what happened before and the kind of interaction that took place.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yeah. We have paper copies next door, which I can provide to any of you who wish to receive one after this meeting. It's also on the legislative committee website. There's a link there to the work of previous legislative committees. It would be filed in the "previous" category under the name Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

D. MacKay: Val, are you talking about the Nisga'a select standing committee that travelled through the province?

V. Anderson: No, the Aboriginal committee that went through and made recommendations about…. No, not the Nisga'a committee particularly. Oh, maybe they did make some….

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yeah. I think it was a report on the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle — in 1997, I believe.

J. Les (Chair): The date of the report was actually '97 or '98. It was the report of the select standing committee on the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, and it included the committee report and a minority report. I have those. I agree with Val. They would make very good reading. They would help refresh some of the thoughts and concepts that were in play at that point in time. Get in touch with the Clerk's office if you need a copy of those reports. Anything else?

V. Anderson: Did everybody on this committee get a copy of the briefing material the other night?

J. Les (Chair): Okay. There's a lot of good material in that as well. Anything else, other than a motion to adjourn?

V. Anderson: Perhaps we should have on the minutes that we're going to meet Wednesday.

J. Les (Chair): I think that's already recorded — 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Thank you all. We'll see you then.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS