Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 2 - Wednesday, September 5, 2001

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Staff Resources		13

Terms of Reference and Meeting Schedule		13

Union of British Columbia Municipalities Convention		21

Terms of Reference and Meeting Schedule		22

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:

Craig James

Committee Staff:

Tamara Little (Consultant)
Audrey Chan (Assistant Researcher)

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon. I'd like to call the meeting to order. The Clerk has asked for 15 seconds of our time to describe how the PA system works in this room.

C. James: Just for the interest of members, you'll notice that you have a little speaker box and a microphone in front of you, and behind me is the console operator for Hansard. In the booth behind us are people who attend to the recording as well. You'll see, I think, on either end of the room a light that says "on air" and "record." When that happens, of course, things are live. I understand that only the microphone that is being spoken into by an individual is live at the time. But you'll also notice that when a little red light is activated, which you probably can't see because it's behind the speaker, your microphone is active. Just be alert to that fact. That's all I have to say about that.

J. Les (Chair): It would also be appropriate for me at this time to formally introduce to the committee Tamara Little, who most of you had a hand in hiring yesterday to act as the staff resource to this committee. She is here, initially at least, on a three-month contract which will see us through the initial work that has been set out for us to accomplish.

Attached to the agenda are project time lines that Tamara drafted early this morning. It sets out in fairly rough detail at this point the suggested time lines for the work of the committee, including the consultation around the province which is described by region as opposed to being extremely specific as to exact times and places. I would suggest to committee members that it's important for each of you to provide input to Tamara — or myself, if you like — in terms of important communities in your various regions that we should be making an effort to reach out to, to gather their input. It goes without saying that three months will go by very quickly, and of course by November 30 our final submission is due for presentation to government.

D. MacKay: I wonder just how realistic the time frame is, looking at the portion of the province that I live in, the number of communities and the fact that the Cariboo-Chilcotin — and I'm assuming the coast includes the Bulkley Valley–Stikine portion of the province…. I'm just wondering how realistic it is to have only six days set aside to cover from Cache Creek up to Prince Rupert. I wonder how realistic that is.

J. Les (Chair): This isn't in any way etched in stone at this point. If you have comments like that, it's important that you bring those up today or, in fact, after today's meeting and further discussion with Tamara. This is just a very rough outline at this point.

Keep in mind, though, that we are not going to be able to visit 200 communities throughout British Columbia. We've got a little better than a month to do that kind of work. We are obviously going to ensure that we have gathered representative input from around the province. I'm certainly not averse, speaking for myself, to making a real effort to go to any corner of the province that we need to, but I realize full well that we are not going to be able to touch all the bases. It has to be a representative selection of communities around the province. From your part of the province, for example…. I'd be very interested in you getting back to the committee with some suggested stopping-off points in those areas.

B. Belsey: Do you want those brought up to the committee, or do you want them taken to Tamara?

J. Les (Chair): I would suggest it's best if that information gets funnelled to Tamara, particularly on this topic, as soon as possible. The sooner we can get a fairly firm agenda together, I think, the better it'll be for each of us. All of us have different things we have to schedule in as well, in addition to the work of this committee. I believe you all have Tamara's contacts either by phone or e-mail, and she would be happy to get that kind of input.

V. Anderson: Have we had any suggestions about the types of meetings or the types of activities? Are they public hearings that we come to, or are we going to meet with individual groups if we're invited? Will there be a variety of formats is what I'm getting at.

J. Les (Chair): Yes. There are going to be times when a full-blown public meeting is the best in a particular community. There are going to be other times when we have a specific request by a group, for example, that wishes to meet with us. If they want to do it on their terms, their suggested format, I'm happy to entertain that.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Two comments, one in response to Dennis's concerns. With respect to travel in the north, I see that the north — which presumably is Prince George and north — in fact commences October 1 through 7. The dates to which Dennis had referred, October 8 through 14, presumably includes south of Prince George including coastal communities in the Cariboo. I think that, in fact, might allow for coverage of the key communities in the north, and I'm glad we're starting in the north.

The other question I have is: has there been any consideration given to perhaps splitting the committee up in some way, which might again answer some of

the current concerns of Dennis and others of us who live in the north and want our communities included in terms of the public submissions?

J. Les (Chair): On your question of splitting up the committee, you'll recall that that was discussed last week. I'm not sure if I'm accurately reflecting the thoughts of all of us here, but the consensus that I seem to have picked up over the ensuing several days is that people want the committee to stay together and not split up into two different groups. I recognize that we could perhaps touch more bases if we split up. I'd be guided by the wishes of the committee, but that's the consensus that I seem to have picked up over the last several days.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): With respect to our previous discussions in committee, there was no consensus. It may be that other members have talked to you since the last meeting, and in fact that may be the consensus that's emerging. But as I understood it, there was no consensus with respect to that question.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Well, we can discuss that further, so let's maybe come back to that. I've got several hands up. We'll get back to that specific item.

G. Trumper: First of all, it's very important that we go north first because of the weather. I understand they've already got snow.

The other issue which has been brought up about dividing the committee…. I think there are going to be times when all of us will have a prior commitment and will not be able to be there due to other committee work, etc. I don't think it would be a good idea to split it up. I think we all need to be there so that we're all hearing the same thing and we're not getting, maybe, different interpretations. I think it's really important that we stay together.

Sometimes there may only be six of us because of whatever committee that we're on. So I think that even though we're not able to cover every place that people would like us to be, I'm quite sure that if they want to make a presentation, they'll be there — wherever we are. I don't personally see the advantage of splitting up the committee.

B. Lekstrom: Just a question regarding our public consultation process. When we do go out and…. It was reflected earlier. There'll be a public hearing process, and then the others that may individually want to meet, whether it be different bands or so on…. Would that be on the record in public meetings? It would concern me should we have groups that want to meet outside of that format. I would just like to hear your views on that.

J. Les (Chair): My view, as I think I expressed earlier in response to Val's question, is that I'm open to a variety of formats. If a particular group wishes to meet with us and approaches the committee with a certain format in which they want to meet with us, I'm open to that. I want to make us available to gather as wide a range of input as possible. Sometimes that's going to mean on the terms and conditions of people who want to present to us.

B. Lekstrom: Just a quick follow-up on that, Mr. Chair. Each one would be evaluated by the committee at the time of request, then. Is that the scenario we would look at?

V. Anderson: Just a clarification, though. I would assume that those, the same as the written submissions…. All of the submissions, in whatever format, would still be part of the public domain in the final analysis.

D. Chutter: Three points. One minor one is that October 8 is Thanksgiving, so that's probably a day we will not be able to travel around.

D. Chutter: A second point. To inform the public about opportunities to submit a written submission, to attend a public meeting or to set up an individual or a private meeting…. Should there be an immediate action on that in terms of informing the public — an advertisement, how to get that information, our contact information? Not announcing where public meetings will take place, etc., but just the fact that "there are opportunities out there; please let us know what you'd like to do as soon as possible" because it'll take several weeks to get that feedback….

J. Les (Chair): That's right. That'll be tied into enabling people to provide that input through e-mail, for example, if they want to do that. There is, at this point, a rudimentary website that will need to be further fortified with additional information that people will want to reference, perhaps even before they put their thoughts together.

I think what you're referring to is a committee's call for submissions. Clearly, we will need to do that on a provincewide basis. That, again, helps us to engage as many people as possible in the process.

D. Chutter: The third point has to do with whether or not the group splits up, etc., or how we go about this. I just want to emphasize, again, that I feel the most important objective we have is to give the opportunity for British Columbians to be heard in this process. In other words, we should not be bound necessarily by the size of our committee or whatever. We are bound somewhat by the time frame we have: November 30. We should give the required time and the required visits to give British Columbians that opportunity. That should be the priority.

J. Les (Chair): I'm not sure whether that means you favour splitting up the committee or not.

D. Chutter: What I mean is that if the objective is to visit a certain number of communities to obtain that result, if it means four people attending or ten people attending — whatever it takes to meet the objective of meeting those British Columbians and allowing them the opportunity to be heard….

J. Les (Chair): Well, given the variety of different ways in which people can engage in the process, I think that at the end of the day it'll be a fair statement to say that everybody will have had an opportunity to provide input. Keep in mind, of course, that if we split the committee, in some ways we double the expense as well, because all of the proceedings of the committee meetings around the province will need to be recorded by Hansard and supported by staff. So there is an increased cost attached to doing that.

M. Hunter: On the issue of the committee's structure, I tend to agree with Gillian Trumper. I think it would be preferable, all other things being equal, for all of us to be one committee. I understand and support the need for every opportunity to be given to those who want to make submissions to this committee, but I would agree with your observation that these days there are ways and means of doing that.

My decision rests on my belief that for all of us to hear as much as possible in common is an important part of this committee's function and structure. I think we're going to hear a wide variety of opinion, and I personally would feel most comfortable being exposed to the maximum amount of that. I think that's accomplished by having the committee act in a unitary way.

On the question of formats, I just want to understand what exactly we're talking about and when we're going to do it. "Open formats" is what I wrote down as my note, and I want to be sure I understand. We are going to seek and welcome submissions by e-mail or mail. Telephones are out because there are too many of us, but those normal forms of communication….

In the hearing process proper, when we sit down as this committee in a town hall somewhere…. For Hansard purposes — and I guess this is a question to other members of the committee too — are we thinking about a wide-open session, or are we going to ask that people make written submissions and speak to them? I think there are physical limitations to not only where we're going to be but how long a human being can concentrate. I know it's true in my case. So I think we need to be realistic that out of 24 hours in a day, you're probably dealing with half a dozen that are real working hours. Certainly you can't sit for six hours in an evening and listen to submissions.

I just want to be clear what our expectations are of the people we are asking to present us with their views. Are we going to ask people to stand in line at a microphone, or are we going to ask them to make submissions, make appointments? The reason I ask at this point is that the answers to those kinds of questions are important in how we send out our communications and our advertising material to the public. For example, if we are going to require a submission, then the ad should say so. If we're going to invite people to come after they've had their supper and say what they want to say, that's a different public notice. So I think that giving Tamara some guidance at this point, given that time passes pretty quickly, would be an appropriate use of our time this afternoon.

J. Les (Chair): Yeah. I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on that, but I would perhaps offer this: it's sometimes counterproductive to be too prescriptive in terms of how submissions are made. If you become too formal, you might discourage people from attending a meeting and providing their input. Others are quite skilled at putting together a formal written submission and simply presenting the committee on the day of the hearing with a five-minute wrap-up on what the submission includes. But for many people that doesn't work. They haven't got the skills or the ability to sit down and put together a formal written submission and yet may well have something very useful to present to the committee in a verbal presentation.

So I think we can certainly suggest to people that written submissions are more than welcome, accompanied by a short verbal presentation, but I don't think we should discourage verbal presentations only.

M. Hunter: That's very helpful. I agree with your basic sentiments as well. Those of us who are a little handier with the pen than others sometimes forget that people do have difficulty expressing themselves in writing. So I think that we should be open to people standing up at the microphone and saying what's on their mind.

I also think that those who do wish to make formal submissions…. You may have hit on a time-saving device in the sense that they can make a submission and give us a five-minute précis of it before the microphone.

M. Hunter: Otherwise you will get a 20-page document that somebody wants to read to you, and that's probably not a good use of our time.

J. Les (Chair): I could envision chairing one of these hearings, and someone has given us a 20-page document that you've just referred to and then wants to launch into a half-hour speech. I think I would exercise some prerogative in that instance and say: "Look, we have all of your material here. We'll be happy to look at it. And by the way, there are 15 people lined up behind you." I don't think that would be inappropriate.

M. Hunter: I agree. But I think that if those are the kind of guidelines we can develop, material can go out that says: "You are welcome to put a written submission and appear before the committee to give a five-minute précis." Then people understand what the rules are.

M. Hunter: And you are not put in the position of being accused of: "Well, you gave that guy six minutes, and I've only been given three."

V. Anderson: Two things. One, I think weekly newspapers are the ones we should get to very quickly, because weekly papers have deadlines, and they're the best way of getting out to a lot of people throughout the province. The other part is that I agree with the presentation, on speaking. It would seem to me that some kind of guideline needs to go out that presentations are, say, ten minutes or whatever; I don't think five minutes is long enough for people. There should be ten minutes and then maybe some time left for questions so that people know ahead of time about the kind of presentation. I know that in preaching, if you haven't got most of the message across after ten minutes, they're not listening anyway. I've had lots of feedback on that one. [Laughter.]

J. Les (Chair): I'm tempted to make some smart comments there, but I think I'll cease and desist. The Clerk has some previous experience with committees of this kind, and he has some thoughts in terms of how they evolve.

C. James: I just thought I'd quickly summarize some of our experience in the past with parliamentary committees, going back years and years. In January 1992 we had what was then called the Members' Committee on the Constitution. It was a split committee, and we travelled around the province in two groups. It was a very onerous process but one that seemed to have worked fairly well in terms of logistics. So it can be done.

The things that members are talking about this afternoon have all been done before. It's a question of agreeing on the format and the process. From there, we certainly can arrange for all of the logistics to be put in place. For instance, we generally issue the call for written submissions at the outset of a committee inquiry. That enables the committee to get the word out first, to allow the public the opportunity and time to think about the issue, prepare their submission and send it in, while at the same time the committee, in a parallel process, is turning their minds toward the public hearing process and how they see this exercise unfolding.

We've had a variety of formats. We've met in schools. We've had tours. We've had public hearings following tours in certain localities. We've travelled in the morning and met in the afternoon and evening and travelled in the morning and done that for four or five days, then had a week off and gone back again. On occasion we've met on weekends. But by and large, it's the target audience, of course, that the members are naturally interested in. As a consequence, they're tailoring their inquiry and their meetings to accommodate the schedules of people who, of course, work and go to school and may be unavailable during the day but may be available at night or on the weekend.

Whatever the committee settles on, no doubt we've done it before. It's just a question of deciding what you want to do, and we can put it together from there. Some members have had experience with this process in the past as well.

B. Belsey: I would like to just offer an idea or concern on the notice going out. I would like it made very clear as to what we're expecting in the presentation so that we don't spend hours and hours listening to all kinds of other issues, so that it is clear and concise.

J. Les (Chair): I'd like to just clarify that, Bill. I think what you're suggesting is that we need to be very clear that we are seeking input from the public on what type of questions we should be putting to the public in a referendum. In other words, we are not discussing whether or not we should engage in the treaty process and perhaps other questions like that. That is of critical importance. I don't want to spend a month going around the province warding off questions about whether or not we should be in the treaty-making process at all. That's a given. I think that our call for submissions and other documents that we would provide, for example, on the Internet and other places need to make that very clear.

B. Belsey: Yes, I think it's important, and it could save us an awful lot of time in the long run.

J. Les (Chair): That's correct. A clear mission statement for the committee that's publicly available is certainly what we need.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I just wondered, Mr. Chair, if at some point today we could canvass again the idea of splitting the committee to answer that question. In light of the comments of the Clerk of Committees with respect to the logistics, it's certainly possible; it's plausible. As well, the comments of Dave with respect to prioritization and what our priorities are in and around the mandate of this committee…. I certainly share those sentiments and those concerns.

Again, I would like that question answered in some way today before we move on to identifying communities within our own areas that we want touched on. I think it's important to know that before we move ahead and discuss communities that we want these consultations to begin in.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I'm happy to let members discuss that item and any others.

D. MacKay: My first question…. I guess I had some concern. I'm surmising that we're probably going to visit native and non-native communities separately. Is that the intent?

J. Les (Chair): That's right. Well, not necessarily separately. There may well be times when we meet in aboriginal communities and other times when we meet in communities where both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people make presentations and reside.

D. MacKay: Given the number of native communities that we have in the northwest, it's going to be impractical to get a good feeling from the people who live there. I'm just looking at Smithers and Fort Babine, which is an Indian reserve, and then I look at Moricetown, which is an Indian reserve. Are we going to exclude one of the Indian reserves? Are we going to exclude some of the non-native communities to accommodate the native communities? Or are we going to have a meeting in Smithers — I'm just throwing this out — where the people from Fort Babine and Moricetown are invited to come and participate?

If we're going to get a good cross-section, we're going to have to visit as many people as possible within the native and non-native communities, and I can't see us doing that, given the time frame that we've allotted ourselves. I would like to suggest that the native communities be invited to participate in public meetings at some of the larger non-native communities, to speed the process up. Otherwise it's going to be difficult to get a good feel from the people that live up there.

I just throw that out, knowing the number of native and non-native communities that are in the northwest. They're all small communities; there are no big communities to speak of — nothing like we have in the lower mainland. In all fairness to those people, we live closer with our native communities than people in the lower mainland do, and we should include as many people as possible. I throw that out to see if we can't have some of those meetings combined as opposed to going from one location to another, because there's time involved in travel. Invariably we're going to be meeting in the evenings, and as Mike Hunter suggested, we can only absorb so much before we start getting numb. So I'll leave that with you.

J. Les (Chair): There's no question that we need to consult with as many people as possible in the most effective way possible, but within the constraints of the time we've got available. So what we need to do after this meeting and presumably by two weeks from today is have a fairly set schedule with your input that will make the maximum use of the time available, realizing that we're not going to be able to touch everyone.

We're not going to be able to go to every community, and that's why, given the geographic diversity that's represented around this table, all of the committee members will need to provide input as to how we can best cover your particular region of the province. I don't presume to know better than you, obviously, what would work best. If we said to you, "Here are a couple of days. How could we best spend that couple of days in your area of the province?" I'd be guided by your advice on that.

G. Trumper: I think we have to send an invitation to as many bands as we can. Between the two of us here on Vancouver Island, north of Nanaimo, we've got about 38 bands. There's absolutely no way that we can be going into all these various areas — Ahousaht or Hesquiaht or wherever. We've got to get an essential place for them. I think it's really important that, whether or not it's us as individuals in our region, we make a point of personally asking them to come to those meetings. If they don't want to come, that's their choice. But I also think that certainly the bands that I deal with either come to Campbell River or come to Port Alberni, depending on geographics. That's usually where they have their treaty meetings.

I don't think it will be too difficult to have those meetings in a central place for them. The key will be to get to them and say: "We want you to come forward, and whether you agree or not with what we're doing, we would like some input from you as to how we address this." In a way it's no good just sending a letter saying that we're doing this. I think we've all got to touch each elected chief that we know to say: "We're going to be here then. We would like your participation." It's no good sending a letter out.

B. Belsey: I think it would be impossible for us to cover every band. They have councils. The council of Haida nation covers two communities. The Tsimshian tribal council covers about 12 communities. I think that if we deal with the councils, we should have reasonable and good representation from the native point of view.

B. Lekstrom: On the issue of possibly splitting the committee in the discussions taking place, I'm wondering if we shouldn't deal with the first topic you spoke about in getting to Tamara the areas we would like to visit, seeing what the logistics are as far as the time frame and then making a decision on whether we have to split the committee or whether it's possible to do it. My personal favourite would certainly be that we all sit at each meeting, because everybody hears things differently. Then we'd be able to put it together. If logistics wouldn't allow that, I think we would have to look at that. Possibly we're one step ahead of ourselves on that issue.

The other one that we've been discussing is meeting in native communities or non-native communities. I have a grave concern already with the tone of our discussion. This is really about British Columbians regardless of what you are. We're talking about basing our meetings on what principles British Columbians would like us to negotiate, and whether we meet in a native community or non-native community, it certainly isn't exclusive to the natives. In a native community it would be a public meeting. I have no problem meeting anywhere, as long as we don't see this as almost that we're stepping in the direction of going in two courses. With the native community we're going to hold meetings.

My favourite would be that regardless of where we meet, these are all fully accessible meetings. Realistically, if they are in Smithers, for instance, that's where they would be held. Again, we can't get everywhere, and the reality is that this is for everybody, regardless of your race — just my two cents' worth.

I'll go back on what Bill had touched on earlier. The mandate is going to be very key to making sure that the information is out there. We've all sat through public hearings, I'm sure. Many people will try to turn the issue into: should we be negotiating treaties? The facts are very clearly there that that is not what this committee is for. It's to discuss the principles that British Columbians would like this province to negotiate on their behalf, and that's for all people. Probably the most important first step is making sure that that information gets out there.

M. Hunter: I think there's always a bit of a risk, and I sense it in some of the interventions on the issue of splitting the committee…. We're all used to the public consultation, the public hearing. The parliamentarians come to town, and it's a social event; it's your chance to say what you've got to say to some elected representatives. I don't diminish the importance of that in small or large communities, but I think we may be underestimating the power of present communications facilities. I think we are going to be shortchanging the public and ourselves if we don't spend the kind of attention that I would like to see on written and e-mailed submissions.

I understand the point you made earlier, Mr. Chair, that not everybody can write a submission, and I think we need to somehow get across that it doesn't matter whether you can write very well or not; it's the essence of your views that is important.

I suspect, without having seen Blair's suggestion in writing and Tamara's assembling the lists of communities we all individually want to go to, that even if you split the committee in two, you're not going to cover every community that people would ideally like to. At the risk of anticipating what people say…. I don't mean to do that; I wouldn't insult people's intelligence in that way. I have been around this file, as many of us have — the whole issue of relations with aboriginal people — for a long period of my life, and I have a suspicion that within a fairly short time, the issues of principles around what should guide British Columbia's negotiating position are going to start to come into half a dozen, ten, 12 different areas. Even the B.C. Treaty Commission, as somebody pointed out to me earlier today, came up with 19 principles. That was 12 or 13 years ago.

I may be wrong, but my own thinking, guided by an expectation based on my own experience, is that we will find that a lot of the submissions start to focus around a couple of handfuls of issues. Again I want to emphasize that I'm not assuming what anybody will say. We all have to make these judgments and views based on where we've been and what we've done. I don't think we should frighten ourselves by saying: "Boy, this is such a huge job, and we're going to have people coming at us from 350 different directions, and we can only cover 200 of them." I don't think that's quite the scope of what I anticipate will be hitting us.

All of that is to say that I would like to stay with my original view that we should work together as a committee. If I am wrong — and it has been known — is there flexibility enough and time enough so that if we find that my anticipation is completely off base and that we are getting 150 different directions from submissions and ideas…? Is there a point — today or a month from now — where we might be able, in fact, to divide the committee if we find that we need to cover a little bit more than we know today?

In a sense, we're operating blind. I assume we're all operating on the kind of thinking that I'm doing — you know: "I've had this experience in the past, and this is what it showed me." If it's wrong, is there a point in time when we can kind of regroup and say…? I don't know if you know the answer to that question. I just throw it out there as a thought.

My view is that we should go with the entire committee. We should ask Tamara to start the logistical exercise of where we should go on what days and how many days it takes. Let's start that process. What I'm suggesting is…. If after week one we find that we are somewhat lost, can we regroup?

J. Les (Chair): Well, there's no intention here of getting lost. I think it was suggested earlier that all of us from our various regions of the province need to provide Tamara with a bit of a thumbnail sketch as to the important communities — I don't say that in a prejudicial way, because of course they're all important — logistically and geographically, the areas where we must touch base. We can provide that input to Tamara in the next several days. The Clerk's office has tremendous experience and resources in terms of putting the logistics together. So let's take that information at that point, and Tamara, working with the Clerk's office, can put together a suggested itinerary that perhaps is workable.

On the question of splitting up, do we make that decision now or in the future? I think that is certainly a potential decision for the future, if we find that we're

simply not getting around to some of the places that we wish to. Other than Paul, I haven't really heard anyone say this afternoon that they're in favour of splitting up the committee. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I've heard a number of people express the sentiment that it's better if we stay together so that we're all hearing the same things from the same people. Again, I'm open to further debate on that if you like.

V. Anderson: On that latter issue, I would like us to go together for at least the first week. I think we need to understand how each other hears and get that flavour, because we all come from different backgrounds and traditions. I think that would be useful for helping the committee to come together. We might well divide after that, but I would like to get the feel of that first.

The other thing, it seems to me, is that one of the opportunities of the process is not just that we hear what people are saying to us. It's more important, really, that the people of the province hear each other, whether they're aboriginal or non-aboriginal. I mean, there are many other groups in the province who have been discussing this. I think it's important that people come together in the same meetings and express opposite opinions but hear each other expressing them.

Another thing I think is important is that so often we have submissions from a group on behalf of a group without realizing that within that group, there are a whole bunch of divisions that aren't necessarily coalesced. Oftentimes it may be the individual that nobody's ever heard before, who comes up and makes the most cogent presentation. So I would encourage individuals to come forward, as well as group presentations.

J. Les (Chair): We've certainly already had e-mails and letters from individuals who have suggested that they wish to make submissions to the committee on an individual basis.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I know, Mr. Chair, that you have made reference to this in the past, but I'll just mention it again, with respect to people getting back to Tamara. For those of us that represent ridings, as we do, we're very familiar with those ridings, and I have a couple of locations in mind. Provisions should be — and, I'm sure, will be — made with respect to those members that are not on this committee, in terms of hearing from them as to what communities they want us to cover and where — the kinds of sensitivities that Blair, Bill and others have made reference to in terms of where we should meet to best accommodate both natives and non-natives and other groups. I'm sure you've given that lots of thought, and you're working on it, but I just thought I'd mention that.

J. Les (Chair): Yeah. That's a worthwhile comment. I would caution you, though, that the more people you get involved in the process of developing the itinerary of this committee, the more you're going to find that a year won't be enough to eventually do everything that's been suggested. We've been specifically charged with the responsibility of carrying out the work of this committee, and I think we have to, to some degree, undertake that in an executive capacity and get on with the work. I'm certainly open to any and all suggestions — absolutely — but mindful, again, of the fact that we've got a limited time frame and that we've got to do the very best job we can within the time available.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): How, then, would you propose addressing those concerns with respect to those members that aren't on this committee?

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): The concerns I outlined with respect to locations and venues, those kinds of things.

J. Les (Chair): Well, I'm certainly open to any suggestion at all, as I said. But are we going to actively canvass scores of people, saying: "Please tell us where to go"? I mean, we're already sensing, I think, that we're going to have a very full six weeks. If we actively go out and solicit further suggestions, we're just going to find ourselves overwhelmed by suggestions and be in a position where some people might be unhappy, having been asked and then not having their suggestion followed up. I'm always mindful of not wanting to build up expectations only having to disappoint them later.

V. Anderson: I kind of agree with Paul. I think it's as simple as making sure all the members of the Legislature get the e-mail, the press release, that's going out right at the very beginning. They will get phone calls in their offices. I think all of their offices need to get that right away, if they get the first calls that come in.

J. Les (Chair): Good suggestion. Is there agreement that that should be done? Is that agreeable? Fine. Tamara will look after that.

Any other commentary? Again, I stress and underline that it's important that each of us, as members of this committee, provide the earliest possible input to Tamara on any thoughts on communities where we should go and any other thoughts in that regard that you might have.

B. Belsey: I think it was yesterday at our gathering that we mentioned that we may be touring the province either by bus at some times or by aircraft at others. I think that might have some bearing on the communities that we access. I can think of some in my riding that have airstrips. There are other ones that are a heck of a lot more remote and that maybe would like to see us there, but I think we have to keep it realistic in getting into and out of these communities.

J. Les (Chair): It's that kind of specialized regional knowledge, you know, that each of us have in our own

M. Hunter: I just had a question on the memo from Tamara. Maybe she can answer it. Public outreach: "…identify communications needs (including public outreach)." Did you have something in mind there that we haven't covered? I'm not quite sure what that term means.

T. Little: Yes. I think what we're just trying to make sure we get down on paper is that there will be needs to develop tools for the public that all of you, as members of the committee, can use to explain what the role of the committee is — for instance, details on the treaty process, if that's useful to the community in advance of submissions. I'm just thinking very generally. I don't think we've identified anything specifically yet, but of course we're hoping to get some advice from the members on what tools you think would be useful to all of you in accomplishing your task at hand. We have nothing specific in mind right now.

M. Hunter: Would this then include, in an advertisement placed in whatever newspaper, a listing of resource materials that the public might want to look at before they put their submission together — that kind of thing?

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Are we done discussing the project time lines? Is there some consensus that this represents a good first draft to be fleshed out over the next several weeks as we gather the input from committee members prior to meeting again formally two weeks from now?

I'll take that as a go-ahead. The next item on the agenda is the draft project estimates, which you have before you. I'm referring specifically to the third page of that submission, where you have the draft budget. In the top half of the page are draft time lines, which I would see as being largely complementary to the item just discussed. Then you have the draft estimates which anticipate a number of public hearings throughout the province and in Victoria and Vancouver.

Of course, keep in mind that these estimates are guidelines only. They're not necessarily cast in stone at this point. But it's a best-guess estimate at this point, for a total budget for this exercise of $325,000. That also contemplates the provision of additional resources in the communications area, for example, and some resources in terms of digesting the written submissions that are going to be made to the committee and processing and synthesizing those into a format that can be digested by the standing committee.

M. Hunter: Just a question, Mr. Chair. I see in the estimates the assumption has been made that there will be 40 meetings in total and an assumption that we will split into two groups, which I don't think we've agreed to do at this point.

M. Hunter: So I'm just wondering how sensitive the estimates are to a reflection of our earlier discussion on whether or not 30 public hearings are what we are going to be able to achieve. If you look at the month of October, there are 31 days. If you take Sundays out, even 30 will be pushing it a little bit. I also assume that the Clerk's office has helped to put these numbers together, based on prior experience. Is that true?

J. Les (Chair): That is correct. Keep in mind, though, that this is very much a best guesstimate at this point. Others who have been members of standing committees in the past — specifically, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs — feel that we'll be lucky to get 20 meetings in the month of October. I throw that out almost deliberately because I don't want each of our regions of the province suggesting that we should do at least half a dozen meetings in a specific region. I'm happy to go to 100 meetings in October, but I know that the logistics of moving a committee and associated staff and support around the province and meeting the time availabilities of the public will tend to reduce the number of meetings that it will be physically possible to convene.

So don't read any of those figures, whether they're 30 or 40 meetings, as a given. We will try very hard, when we're travelling about the province, to make the very best use of the time possible. There may well be a few times here and there when you're annoyed with the Chair for having stretched a day out beyond what you think is reasonable. That's only an early warning that I'm suggesting. It may be way past the time when you get numb in certain parts of your anatomy.

B. Lekstrom: A question I would have: during our time lines in the discussion here, would it be our intent to possibly hold more than one hearing in a day?

J. Les (Chair): Sure — absolutely. If we are able to arrange morning and afternoon meetings in certain communities, obviously we will take advantage of those. I'm going to be suggesting under the next item that two weeks from today we start our first hearings here in Victoria. A number of people have indicated that they're prepared to come to Victoria and make presentations, and we can start those as early as 10 o'clock in the morning.

But there might be people in other parts of the province who would like to make a presentation and can do so at any time of the day, but they don't want to come to Victoria to do that. We can easily use some of that morning and afternoon time to do that in other places in the province.

V. Anderson: When you said morning and afternoon, I just wanted to make sure that you weren't excluding evenings.

J. Les (Chair): I suspect that when we're on the road, we're going to be meeting every evening. That is the best time to ensure public availability.

Is there agreement that the draft estimates represent a fairly reasonable estimate of the committee's expenses? Can I have the committee's authorization by consensus that expenditures can be made from that, particularly with an eye to additional resources that Tamara might need around communications, website and research staff? Is that agreeable?

J. Les (Chair): On the next item, which is any other business, the only other business I have at this point is a suggestion that we meet again two weeks from today, on September 19, at 10 o'clock in the morning. At this point we feel that by that time, Tamara will be able to arrange a number of presenters to the committee. That meeting, I presume, would be in this room. Is that agreeable to all?

M. Hunter: Yes. These are presentations from people who understand that the committees in operation have contacted you or the Clerk.

J. Les (Chair): People who have already been in contact with us through various ways.

V. Anderson: There was some discussion, also, that we might plan some opportunities at UBCM.

V. Anderson: I would like to urge us to do that and encourage that that be made available for people to meet with.

J. Les (Chair): Yes, I talked to Tamara about this earlier today. Most of us are going to be at UBCM, I suspect. If we can communicate with the councils and regional boards around the province in the next week or so and we can find a facility nearby, it might be worthwhile to convene a meeting there and organize some presentations to be made to the committee while we're there. Two of us, I believe, are going to be at the Pacific Business and Law Institute, and that's fine. That allows for likely the majority of the committee there to accept presentations from municipal leaders from around the province. Any thoughts on that? I'd be open to them.

B. Belsey: I believe the meeting that you're referring to is on the Thursday and Friday for the Pacific Law Institute.

B. Belsey: I would suggest maybe Tuesday or Wednesday. It starts on the Monday, I believe. It usually starts on a Tuesday.

J. Les (Chair): Well, the opening reception of the UBCM is on Tuesday evening. But the UBCM convention has grown over the years, as Gillian well knows. It now starts as early as Monday morning with different workshops and things. I'd be interested in Gillian's thoughts on what day we might pick in that week.

G. Trumper: Well, my preference would be for Thursday and Friday, because I've got meetings here Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. You can have them without me. I think that you're not going to get a lot of people there Monday, the reason being that it's in Vancouver. It's very expensive for them, and a lot of them are not sending that many delegates because of the cost of the convention. Everybody certainly would be coming in Tuesday night and Wednesday. If we were able to have something available starting then — Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays…. I don't think you'll get many people there Monday. Tuesday will be regional district day, fairly busy. That would be my take on it. I'm not too sure how many people…. If they're at the workshops, there are not going to be too many people wandering around to take time.

J. Les (Chair): Your point is well taken that your average delegate is going to be there Wednesday, Thursday and half of Friday. It's regional district day on Tuesday and some optional stuff on the Monday, so your delegates…. Their full numbers are not evident until Wednesday morning. It's worthwhile keeping that in mind.

I think we have to perhaps leave whether it's Wednesday or Thursday a little open at this point and

allow Tamara a couple of days to feel that out a little bit to see what might work best. That might need to be done in consultation with Richard Taylor and others, and it's also subject to venue availability — somewhere not too far away obviously. We don't want to be across town, because that would tend to limit the number of people coming in.

G. Trumper: Just a thought, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering about…. Simon Fraser might have a room available. It's not far from the convention centre.

M. Hunter: I'm again very conscious of the fact that I'm surrounded by people who have had experience in municipal government. I don't mean to undermine UBCM at all, but is the purpose of this meeting to get a meeting with UBCM, or is it to meet with individual councillors who happen to be delegates? I'm not quite sure I understand. If we're trying to make our life a little bit simpler by taking the opportunity of having the UBCM convention and an opportunity to get a presentation from UBCM, that's one thing. But it's not clear to me, other than the fact that there are bunch of people gathered in downtown Vancouver, what it is we're actually seeking from whom.

J. Les (Chair): My assumption is this: the UBCM convention is happening at that time. It provides us with an opportunity to gather input from municipal leaders around the province who all happen to be at one place at one time. It's simply taking advantage of a very large convention and a constituency that likely, in my experience, has some things to say about the treaty-making process.

M. Hunter: I certainly don't deny that last observation at all. I just wanted to be clear that…. If UBCM has a position, which I'm sure they do, we would expect to hear from UBCM as the institution. But your view is that we would take the opportunity so we can meet the mayor of Cache Creek — or pick your community — or whoever is there representing Cache Creek. It means that when we go to Cache Creek, in my example, we've actually got one fewer presentation to hear in that community. Is that what you're assuming?

J. Les (Chair): That's possible. It might facilitate the mayor of Cache Creek who, when we arrive in that region of the province, might be tied up with something else. This might be an opportunity for that particular individual to make a presentation, who might be on a bus in Edmonton when we arrive in Cache Creek.

M. Hunter: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify what you saw coming out of this. It wasn't clear; it now is.

J. Les (Chair): If we want the corporate position of UBCM, we're certainly open to that. They will find an opportunity to make a presentation to the committee.

M. Hunter: Now I understand. I don't have a difficulty with what you're proposing.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I was going to say — and perhaps it doesn't need to be said — that I think it's a great opportunity to hear from community leaders, particularly those communities where we're unable to hold public forums given our time constraints and so forth. As you pointed out, Mr. Chair, they're all in one place at one time. For those of us who have attended UBCM in the past, it's just a great opportunity to hear from those folks.

J. Les (Chair): I am, however, mindful of the logistics of putting that together. It will mean that we will need to correspond a.s.a.p. with the various municipal councils and regional boards and also find a venue that is relatively convenient. If those things are doable, then I think it would be wrong of us not to avail ourselves of the opportunity.

M. Hunter: Just one more question. Maybe we could ask Tamara to investigate before our next meeting, or each of us could take a look around the calendar and see if there are other large gatherings of people where we might afford ourselves the same opportunity.

J. Les (Chair): Absolutely. Any good information like that — funnel it in as quickly as you become aware of it.

D. Chutter: Mr. Chairman, maybe you could review the decisions that have been made today in terms of immediate action to be taken, just so I'm clear on it. I'll give you some examples. You mentioned the UBCM, lining that up. It's been mentioned to hear presentations the last two weeks of September starting the middle of the second-last week. Is that right — the 19th?

D. Chutter: And it's been mentioned that we should provide our input to Tamara right away…

D. Chutter: …as to communities to visit. It was mentioned that perhaps a press release — I believe that word was used — be put out to the MLAs to give them the opportunity to provide input as to locations.

D. Chutter: Lastly, what I've got is that we discussed putting out a call for submissions. I'd be interested to know the time line for that and in what manner — community newspapers, community radio…. Are there any other options as well? But most importantly, what is the time line for that? Is that to be done this week, so we get feedback in the next two or three weeks?

J. Les (Chair): My own thoughts on the last issue — and maybe I'll get Tamara to comment as well — are that that should happen relatively quickly. I think we're all very clear on the mandate of the committee. We can easily turn that into a mission statement which can go out with the call for submissions. I think that will provide sufficient guidance for people considering making a submission. My own feeling is that we should have that call for submissions out relatively quickly. Do you wish to comment on that, Tamara?

T. Little: I think that's the highest priority at this point. We have some significant guidance now from the committee and the Chair in terms of what the workplan will be over the next few months. I feel confident that we should be able to get that done forthwith.

V. Anderson: Two questions. One, on the time line, is: what would be the last date for submissions? I think we should decide that, so that's clear.

V. Anderson: The other one is…. I agree with the mission statement. I'm wondering if when it's put together, it could be circulated to the committee so we could all get feedback on it, just to make sure we all hear and see the same thing before it goes out.

I'm not exactly sure what the end point is in terms of submissions. I don't think we need to clarify that right now. I think staff can give some thought to that, as to what is the logical cut-off point, recognizing that things have a habit of dribbling in after that anyway. I think it's only fair to the public to advise them what the deadline is for submissions.

M. Hunter: Keep me here long enough, and I might have a couple of bright ideas.

M. Hunter: I am thinking in terms of…. I've gone back in my mind to the issue of reaching as much of the public as we can. It occurred to me that we have a cable television system in British Columbia and that we

haven't talked about using the facilities of Shaw Cable here in Victoria as a means of conducting town hall meetings in absentia. Would that be a technology that we might think about?

I'll tell you what's brought that up: your report from members who served on committees earlier that in one month 20 hearings is probably what we're going to be looking at, which I think, on reflection, is probably true. In addition to what we talked about in terms of electronic written communications, are we missing out on the facilities that we have in cable television as a means of getting to more places?

C. James: Committees have used local community cable and other television stations to broadcast committee proceedings. The committee that dealt with the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle is one example. But in this case, in order for committees to broadcast their proceedings beyond the precincts, whether by radio or by television, requires an instruction from the House. The House is the one body that would convey those specific terms of reference upon it. If that was the case, we could certainly line that up.

We have in the past contacted community cable outlets to ask them, to avail ourselves and themselves of the committee schedule and other communication tools. Sometimes they've been fairly reluctant, because they tend to deal more with non-profit or charitable organizations as opposed to parliamentary committees. But that's certainly an avenue we could explore further.

J. Les (Chair): Again, I think each of us in our communities — assuming the committee arrives in our specific communities at some point — may well want to talk to the individual cable companies to see whether they're interested in covering, for example, an evening public meeting. Whether it's on a live-broadcast or delayed-broadcast basis, I think there's some real value in that.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Is there not some sort of media alert that would go out formally from the office of the Clerk of Committees?

To Tamara's right, I should have earlier introduced to the committee Wynne MacAlpine, who will be doing some support and research work for the committee as well. So say hello to her before you go and help atone for my tardiness in introduction.

All right. If there's nothing else, we stand adjourned until Wednesday the 19th at 10 a.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS