Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 5 - Wednesday, October 3, 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. The Chair called the Committee to order at 1:13 p.m.

2. Opening remarks by John Les, Chair, Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    1) Bill Ellis
    2) Paddy Greene, BC Fisheries Survival Coalition
    3) Howard Gray
    4) Michael Tarr, Prince Rupert Economic Development Council
    5) Barbara Armitage

4. The Committee recessed from 3:27 p.m. to 3:48 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    6) Peter Lester
    7) Bruce Gochauer
    8) David Konsmo, Green Party of British Columbia
    9) Elmer Moody

6. The Committee recessed from 5:20 p.m. to 6:35 p.m.

7. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    10) Dave Prosser, Northern Trollers Association
    11) Cyril Stevens
    12) Don Silversides
    13) Roberta van Doorn
    14) Bill White
    15) Roland LeBlanc

8. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 8:22 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Time

Presentations		90
	B. Ellis	90
	P. Greene	91
	H. Gray	97
	M. Tarr	98
	B. Armitage	102
	P. Lester	105
	B. Gochauer	106
	D. Konsmo	110
	E. Moody	111
	D. Prosser	117
	C. Stephens	120
	D. Silversides	123
	R. Van Doorn	125
	B. White	128
	R. LeBlanc	129

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


Witnesses:	Barbara Armitage Bill Ellis Bruce Gochauer Howard Gray Paddy Greene (B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition) David Konsmo (Green Party of British Columbia) Roland LeBlanc Peter Lester Elmer Moody David Prosser (Northern Trollers Association) Don Silversides Cyril Stephens Mike Tarr (Prince Rupert Economic Development Council) Roberta Van Doorn Bill White

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. My name is John Les. I'm the MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas and Chair of this committee. Before the other members of the committee introduce themselves, I just want to make a few remarks about the committee and the work that it has been asked to do by the Legislative Assembly.

On August 27 the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs was empowered by the Legislative Assembly to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions which the government of British Columbia should submit to voters to implement the government's commitment to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum while ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title are respected. Copies of the committee's terms of reference and other information about the legislative committee process are also available at the information table in this room, which is at the back.

The committee is eager to hear views from a range of British Columbians, and in the process we hope to build interest and support for the treaty process. To this end, the committee has publicized its hearing process and a call for written submissions in radio and newspaper ads throughout the province. The committee will be accepting written submissions until Friday, November 2.

The committee will be holding public hearings like this one in communities throughout British Columbia. Just to give you a quick rundown on the other communities that we will be visiting after today, they are Smithers, Fort St. John, Williams Lake, Kelowna, Cranbrook, Chilliwack, Vancouver, Prince George, Kamloops, Lillooet, Nanaimo, Port Alberni and Campbell River. The full schedule of the committee's meetings will be on the website as of today for your reference. The hearings today and all of the meetings, in fact, will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff. The transcripts will be available on the committee's website at www.leg.bc.ca.

Following these public hearings the committee will prepare a report of its observations and recommendations. The report will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, or if the House is not in session, it will be deposited with the Clerk of the Legislature by November 30. The report will be a public document once it is tabled or deposited.

I'd now like to give members of the committee an opportunity to introduce themselves, starting with Dennis MacKay.

D. MacKay: My name is Dennis MacKay. I'm the MLA from Buckley Valley–Stikine. I live in Smithers, and I represent the largest geographic riding in British Columbia. Good afternoon, and I look forward to your input.

R. Visser: My name is Rod Visser. I'm the MLA for the North Island and I live in Campbell River.

G. Trumper: I'm Gillian Trumper. I'm the MLA for Alberni-Qualicum and for the last seven years have been the local government's representative on treaty negotiations for the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council.

D. Chutter: Hello. My name is Dave Chutter. I'm the MLA for Yale-Lillooet and I live in Merritt.

B. Lekstrom: My name is Blair Lekstrom. I am the MLA for Peace River South and Dawson Creek is my home. I represent the area covering Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Pouce Coupe, Dawson Creek, Taylor, great places in the north. I'd like to thank you for having us today.

B. Belsey: My name is Bill Belsey. I'm the MLA for this area, and I would just like to welcome all of you. Thank you for coming out and participating. I would also like to extend a warm welcome to my colleagues. It's a pleasure having this many colleagues in one area, travelling the province and, of course, meeting the people in Prince Rupert. I have them all convinced that this weather has been brought to them by you people and myself, and I'd like you not to tell them anything different. I would also like to welcome those that are working with us today, looking after the Hansard and the communication system we have. Welcome to Prince Rupert.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): My name is Paul Nettleton. I'm the MLA for Prince George–Omineca. I live in Fort St. James. Prior to politics I was a lawyer at Dene Law Centre, a native community law office, and I'm delighted to be here.

M. Hunter: I'm Mike Hunter. I'm the MLA for Nanaimo and was a frequent visitor to Prince Rupert over the years in my former career in fisheries. I'm delighted to be here, and I look forward to hearing what you have to say today.

V. Anderson: I'm Val Anderson, the MLA for Vancouver-Langara. My last visit to this beautiful community was about 28 years ago, so I'm glad to come back.

To my immediate left is Kate Ryan-Lloyd. She is the Clerk to the standing committee.

Moving into the presentations now, at this point I have four people who have indicated formally that they wish to make a presentation. Generally, if you would like to make a presentation, I would ask that

you register with Tamara Little at the desk in the back, just so we know who's coming up. When you do come up, we ask that you identify yourself by name and make your presentation. The first speaker this afternoon will be Bill Ellis, followed by Paddy Greene, followed by Howard Gray. We have several who are on tap for later on this afternoon and early this evening. Bill tells me that we also have a number of people here from Friendship House, and I'd like to extend a welcome to them as well.

B. Ellis: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee and all participants in what I believe will be quite a historic occasion. As you were introducing yourself, I realized that over the course of 80 years in British Columbia I have lived or worked in every one of your constituencies. I'm very, very pleased to be in yours now, Bill, in the north country.

I'm going to read quickly a little bit, and then I would like to make a few comments. If there are any questions that I might be able to answer, I would like to answer them the best I could.

I feel this is a plea for love and wisdom in our aboriginal treaty negotiations, and I'm not suggesting that you don't have plenty of both. My experience is that the prevailing climate in British Columbia, in every one of your ridings, is too much anger, too much greed, too much guilt, a great deal of fear and an immense amount of ignorance. This climate is not suitable for the conduct of fair and equitable relationships and negotiations.

Many, many thoughtful citizens have warned you and us — everybody — against the referendum approach. I know that you're aware of that. I recommend a cooling-off period involving massive public education and a healing process. By the way, just in case you haven't noticed, I recently had a stroke and I'm a little weird. So please bear with me.

B. Ellis: This is urgently needed. The social and economic ramifications of what you are doing are vitally important to the future of British Columbia and to Canada. I urge you to seek men and women of the highest intelligence and credibility to direct this process, allowing at least ten years before negotiations resume. Costs could be met in part by disbanding the enormously expensive failed B.C. Treaty Commission.

Now, I'd like to suggest that a referendum will play into the hands of radicals, which we have plenty of on both sides, where you have to be in the middle.

We have heard from the treaty commissioners and from Miles Richardson, who is a fellow Queen Charlotte Islander, that the process should move more slowly, that it's not going to be as easy as we thought it was going to be. At the same time, I think we have to stop making interim agreements, all of which impede, stop, prevent and are not fundamentally related to a good solution. This is piecemeal treaty-making, treaty-making by instalments on our credit card.

We need to, and I urge you to, go beyond the warriors on both sides and create by all possible means a vision of our future together. As I look around this province, as I do business around British Columbia, as I travel around British Columbia, I see such division between the native people and the white people. We cannot risk the agenda for healing the present situation in the hands of warriors on both sides.

I don't have any specific recommendations — that's for better minds than mine — but I know the kind of people that I would like to involve in this process. One person who is known to many people up here and to you, sir, in your constituency, is a judge called Steven Point, a clever man, a wise man with a great deal of experience. He's a Salish fellow, a fine fellow. I would ask you to look to heights that you might not easily reach for and think of somebody at the level of Michael Ignatieff, who has written a marvellous book called The Rights Revolution in Canada. It's a great read, and he's a stunning person. He happens to be in Boston right now with Harvard University, but he thinks of himself very much as a Canadian. He might be interested in participating in this educational process. I've mentioned Steven as one of those kinds of participants, not the warriors, and I tend to be a little bit of a warrior myself.

I would like to conclude by taking a quote from a noted Canadian Indian author. He said that the Indian trail lies beyond the past, where we're stuck so much right now, beyond the present, which is very upsetting, and into the future. The same wisdom applies to us all.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I thank you very much for putting up with me.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Bill. The pleasure was ours, and I certainly was interested in some of the concepts that you talked about. Creating a vision of the future was something you mentioned a few moments ago, and certainly that's what this process is about. Very precisely, this is about creating a vision for the future. I certainly bought into that and several other things that you said as well.

D. MacKay: I just wanted to expand on what the Chairman said, Bill, about the purpose of the committee and about one of the things that you said, that we should speak to the non-warriors, the people that are being affected by the industry that seems to have developed around the treaty process. I would like to think that this process that we've started with in Prince Rupert today is doing just that: discussing the issues with the non-warriors, the people that are non-elected. We're asking people who are outside the elected bodies, whether it be the native government or the elected governments that we sit on, to come forward and tell us what they would like to see in treaties down the

road so we can put an end to this and get on with our lives and look to the future with some certainty and clarity and finality.

B. Belsey: Bill, I would also like to thank you very much. You've brought forward some very interesting points, points that I will spend the next month or so pondering. I concur with my colleague Dennis MacKay that we have to be very careful that this process is not hijacked by the warriors and that we put forward a process which everybody can participate in. It doesn't matter where they come from, from what walk of life, but they have to have the opportunity to express their concerns in forums like this. Truly, I want to thank you very much for attending today.

V. Anderson: I come out of a United Church background as a minister, and I worked for 11 years in a multi-faith organization here in British Columbia. I'm very aware, having been approached by persons of all-faith groups, who are very aware of the cultures and values of the aboriginal communities and the similarities in cultures that many of us share. They've been coming forth very strongly to say that we have to talk and recognize dignity and values. After we do that, we talk about land and other things, although they're very closely related.

B. Ellis: It's the future that we need to share together. None of us is going away. We've got to share and come together.

M. Hunter: Thanks, Bill, for your thoughtful remarks. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I would agree with your description of the prevailing climate in B.C. I think I have some understanding of where some of these things are coming from. I understand the guilt. I think I understand the ignorance. Maybe I understand a little bit about others, but I wanted your perspective. Where in your mind, given your experience, is the anger coming from? Is it because British Columbia appears not to have followed principles that it set out ten years ago? Is it something deeper than that? Can you just give me your thoughts about this lack of understanding and your thoughts about the nouns you've used: anger, greed? In your mind what is the origin?

B. Ellis: Well, history has been very biased. White history has unquestionably overridden native people across Canada and in other places in the world. I do not feel any guilt for that now, and I don't think British Columbians should feel guilt, because guilt is not a good position to negotiate from. We have to have a vision that embraces us all.

Now, too much emphasis has been put on historical wrongs, which are very wrong today, not quite so wrong in the day in which they were done. This is a moving process. We have to come up to date. We have to get with young people. We've got to get the women of first nations out there involved and working. We need the voice of first nations women, and that needs development, education and reciprocal understanding.

I may not be answering your question well, but I would like to say very strongly that I do not feel any guilt. I have worked with native people for 50 years. I don't feel that I have been bad for them, not at all. I'm sure you don't either. You don't need to take historical guilt into your hearts and heads now.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Bill, for your presentation. You made the comment that we need a huge education program. One of the things I have found in having been involved in treaty negotiations at a local level is that it's been very difficult to get the information out or to get the attention of individuals or the public on the issues of treaty. Have you any suggestions as to how we tackle that education process?

B. Ellis: I know that the answers are not going to be in 30-minute television commercials. They're not going to be in full-page ads by the province. I don't know where they're going to be. Maybe it's got to be at bingo games. Maybe it's got to be at the PTA in our schools. We've got to think hard about this process. It's not enough to hire an advertising agency and public relations people and say: "Well, this is our side, so you'll give us…." Nor is it enough put tons of money in the hands of aboriginal people and say: "Hire the advertising agencies and public relations people and consultants, and go at it from our side's point of view."

That's why I want to hear from somebody at the level of Michael Ignatieff on this issue, if he would be kind enough to do it, and I mentioned Steven Point as being the kind of man who I think could feel comfortable with the native people and them with him. By the way, he's very well known up here and over in the Charlottes as a good judge.

Again, thank you very much, Bill, for coming this afternoon. We appreciated hearing from you. If you're talking to Steven Point at some point along the way, pass on my regards. It's been a year or two now since I've last seen him. I think he's been up here two or three years now as a Provincial Court judge? Do pass on my regards, and, again, thank you.

P. Greene: My name is Paddy Greene. I'm a Canadian and a British Columbian. I reside in the city of Prince Rupert. I've been a resident here for well over 50 years. I've been in the fishing industry most of that time. I had my first boat when I was 18. A lot of my focus today will be on some aspects of that industry.

It's very important to me and to the people I represent, my neighbours and friends whom I've talked to, that we work for equality for all British Columbians. I would recommend to you — and I've brought my copy — British Columbia's Howay and Scholefield, volume 2. I have it because at the back there's the Terms of Union, when British Columbia became part of Canada. This is probably the most important document we have in British Columbia. There are a number of undertakings the federal government took, a lot of interesting things, one on fisheries, the protection and encouragement of fisheries. I think the feds are in severe default on that right now. I'll just throw that one in a little bit here.

"The charge of the Indians, and the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit, shall be assumed by the Dominion Government, and a policy as liberal as that hitherto pursued by the British Columbia Government shall be continued by the Dominion…after the Union.

"To carry out such policy, tracts of lands of such extent as it has hitherto been the practice of the British Columbia Government to appropriate for that purpose, shall from time to time be conveyed…for the use and benefit of the Indians, on application from the Dominion Government, and in case of disagreement between the two Governments respecting the quantity of such…land to be so granted, the matter shall be referred [to] the Secretary of State for the Colonies."

We don't have that anymore. Clearly, in that, the federal government assumed responsibility for aboriginal people in British Columbia.

Further to this agreement, in 1924 the Privy Council and the federal government in Ottawa wrote to the government of British Columbia and said: "Outstanding lands that had to be conveyed to various bands and areas have now been completed. Your obligation under the Act of Union is now complete. We're not going to require you to put any more land on the table."

It was really interesting to me when modern treaty-making started. I was around some of it. The previous government made what I would say is an extremely poor agreement with the feds. I think this agreement is up for renewal. You guys would know more about it than me. My point is that it's up to the feds to supply the land. The land requirement has already been conveyed by British Columbia, so it should be the federal government, in supplying lands, who should acquire that land from the provincial Crown at a cost. What's happened here is we have been ignoring a constitutionally protected document and bearing the cost that had been taken over by the federal government. It might be a nice revenue source for the province. You know, it's just the feds sloughing off, downloading, and it doesn't have to be that way.

We got into these discussions of aboriginal rights. I'm not sure where aboriginal rights come from. I understand some of them. Is it previous activity? I don't think all previous activity is covered. There's no slavery anymore. Is it oil and gas? Oil and gas is fairly topical now. I don't think oil and gas is an aboriginal right. There's some interesting concepts there, but you guys are going to have to struggle with some of this.

With the treaty-making process, in the fishing industry we could not understand why government was allowing the sale of food fish or a separate commercial fishery. I sit on TNAC and chaired the fisheries committee for a long time. Mr. Hunter was there as well. TNAC represents about 600,000 jobs in British Columbia, all sectors of the economy: labour, utilities, etc. My biggest complaint about this over the years — and it was started by the Socred government — is that government, after pulling this group together, Privy Council appointments both provincially and federally, basically ignored the advice. It's like a process thing. "Well, we're required by necessity to consult with you people, but we're not going to pay any attention to what you say." It's very, very frustrating — more so on the federal side than on the provincial side but on the provincial side as well under the past administration.

In a conversation with Jack Ebbels one time, actually in this community, trying to get some understanding of why were people going to allow the sale of food fish in the Nisga'a treaty, Mr. Ebbels said to me: "Well, that's what it's going to take to get a treaty," not whether it was right or wrong or whether it was an aboriginal right. The government's political objective was to move the treaty forward and, I guess, basically at any price. I think it's wrong. I won't even go into what the feds were doing, the deceit and lies from the federal minister at the time.

I've been on this file for a long time. I got put in the barrel by my peers. This is not something that someone would seek out to do. It is not a lot of fun. There is a lot of, as the previous speaker talked about, anger and whatnot. You get to be a lightning rod or target. I think it's important that people do speak up. I got put into that role.

Prior to 1987 I was at dinner in Vancouver, down on the waterfront in a well-known restaurant, the Cannery. A gentleman by the name of Fred Penman and I were having dinner with the federal Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We had quite a friendly relationship with the DFO in those days. They were doing an honourable job and producing world-class fisheries management. At the conclusion of the evening the deputy said: "I don't want to alarm you guys, but I think you should know" — this was in the early 1980s — "that in Ottawa they're talking about land claims" — this is the feds — "and they're referring to fish as 'Indian currency,'" their words. They were intending to go into modern-day treaty-making and use fish primarily as a currency to settle claims. "I don't want to alarm you." I was alarmed. We discussed it with our colleagues. After that, we got wind of what was going on up in the Nass: an unprecedented amount of fish that Mr. Whatley, a name from the past, set out to convey was just totally out of proportion.

I would like to tell you people about a report done by an economist at Fisheries and Oceans by the name

of Michelle James, looking at the contribution and the involvement of aboriginal people in British Columbia in the salmon fishery. On the fishing side it averaged that between 32 and 34 percent of all the commercially caught salmon in British Columbia were taken by aboriginal people, with about 4 percent of the population. What I'm trying to point out here is the very large involvement of aboriginal people in the fishing industry. They applied those skills and knowledge with great execution, excellent fishermen. When I was fishing, I tried hard to keep up with them and was sometimes successful. Some days I was never as successful as they were.

The families, the women primarily, worked in the canneries of Prince Rupert, coming up from past Hazelton. There was a great deal of employment.

The DFO, through their management policies, which I think are wrong, have seriously ruined the commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia. You may be thinking: "Why is he going on about this? This is a federal responsibility." I would say to you that it is not entirely, particularly in fresh water. The only federal authority is for purposes of conservation.

There is a court case going before the Supreme Court of Canada called Regina v. Ward. It's being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Justice Department, who lost in the Court of Appeal in Newfoundland. British Columbia is not a party to it, and I do not know why. I understand your Attorney General has a very, very full plate, but I would hope somebody might persuade him that this is something we should be involved in. It's very late in the day, but seeing how you're a new government, you might get some access in there. In Newfoundland they said that Fisheries and Oceans has a wide latitude for the purpose of conservation, but on the business side and the property side it should be in the provincial domain.

In 1987 the fishermen's alliance went to court on this Whatley offer of fish on the Nass. The decision of the judge was: "Sorry; you guys you lose on this. You're not wrong in what you're saying; you're just premature. You can't make a claim for damages until you've actually been damaged." If I threaten to shoot you, you can't do anything. If I point a gun at you, you can't do anything. When the trigger is pulled and you're damaged, that's when you can go to court. That has not been very successful for us. We have found ourselves in our industry all alone. We had some help from the previous Socred government on permission to go to court. Our legal actions — and we've had some real successes — have been borne out of the pockets of the commercial fishing industry. I believe those costs properly should have been borne by government.

We had a change of government then. We went from a Socred to an NDP government, and I had some friendly connections through family with Mr. Harcourt and had a couple of conversations with him. I brought my local MLA along, Dan Miller, hoping for support but didn't get much. The basis of the conversation was primarily: "What's going on in land claims here?" Premier Harcourt said: "What we're going to do, Paddy, is we're going to recognize aboriginal title in British Columbia and then go and fight like hell for a good deal for all of British Columbians." My question to Mr. Harcourt was: "What does aboriginal title mean?" He said: "Well, we don't know. It hasn't been defined." I think agreeing with something when you don't know what the heck it is is pretty short-sighted, and I think there was a real flaw there.

The Delgamuukw decision came down about that time — an enormous undertaking by the parties involved, including Justice McEachern. For two years he went up to Smithers and listened to oral history and gave wide latitude. A change of government came, and the question of appeal was coming up. I know some of you know this, but for those who don't, I'm trying to make this point. The NDP said: "Please don't appeal this. We're your friends. We'll give you a real good deal here." Nonetheless, the Gitxsan appealed it, and the province's panicky reaction to it was to fire a winning law team and put in Mr. Bryan Williams, who was previously suing the government for the Gitxsan. He changed sides, and they had him on the other side. What went on was absolutely appalling. He'd basically lay down whatever he wanted. It was very, very bad news for British Columbia.

In the Supreme Court of Canada, on appeal, winners and losers…. It's not defined, and it's hard to say where that leads. Further litigation is probably going to result somewhere down the line. By the way, our litigation bills are over $2 million, at least half in voluntary donations from fishermen fighting our own tax dollars on the other side.

Issues of accountability. We had our examination for discovery with Fisheries and Oceans and found a memo from Mr. Pat Chamut, who was director general of Fisheries and Oceans in British Columbia. His memo said that there will be no audits on aboriginal people. I guess we don't want to embarrass any of them. There are two standards of justice here.

A friend of mine who was a chief from Harrison was very offended and alarmed. His point of view was: "Do you have a lower standard because we're aboriginal people? Everybody should have the same standard." I agree with him. His group at Harrison had been doing hatchery work for nearly 25 years, spring salmon and Chinook, doing excellent work, very successful, doing some habitat modification for chum salmon in the spring and the fall. Under the AFS policy the federal government said: "Well, if you guys want to have any income, earning money in the fishing industry, you'll have to go out there and fish commercially, and by the way, we're not going to fund your projects anymore." So there's a group of people who were making a very positive contribution, and their funding was taken away through a foolish plan.

In our sector everybody gets mad when you say AFS, aboriginal fishing strategy. What they're really upset about is the pilot sales project. There are many good aspects of the aboriginal fishing strategy, including work by aboriginal people in hatcheries and look-

One other issue I wanted to talk about is that there was a great argument — again, the NDP went along with this, against totally solid advice from TNAC — about the words "cede," "release" and "surrender." Those words meant finality. It was understood. This other new language they used in the Nisga'a was untested. We asked for a reference from the Supreme Court of Canada to find out what it meant so we would understand. Right now you're buying a pig in a poke.

One of the greatest things I've run into, discussing this with friends and neighbours and people around the province, is that when land claims are finished, we want finality. We don't want to go back and do this over again. The previous speaker was talking about the difficulties and the acrimony. I don't think we want to be in a forever situation with negotiations and litigations. We need finality. Sometimes leadership means saying no.

Basically, we're asking for fairness for all British Columbians. It's very important to the future. What's going on today and has been going on in the last number of years is going to have a huge impact on the future. The playing field has been totally unlevel towards the non-aboriginal people around here and all of British Columbia, and I think we need some balance.

The referendum questions. I understand funding is going to be given to the aboriginal sector. I think we need parallel funding. We had that the last time we had a referendum in British Columbia, and I was involved with the no side of that. It was interesting to me that the process in British Columbia was not an issue of Quebec; it was a governance issue. I noted how Prince Rupert voted, and all the villages around Prince Rupert voted almost identically. I think there's a large number of people in those villages that wanted the protection of the constitution and the Charter.

I won't go into all the questions. I understand that Mr. Eidsvik set out a number of questions. I think there's need for some polishing. Question 10 was very interesting to me. It very briefly talks about a time limit on negotiations. After eight years and $500 million not a single treaty has been signed. The Nisga'a treaty was outside the B.C. treaty process. How much longer should the uncertainties caused by treaty negotiations jeopardize the lives of other B.C. workers? How much longer should individual aboriginals wait for a settlement while negotiators on both sides enjoy generous salaries, per diems and lucrative expense accounts? The question is: if a settlement is not reached after three years of negotiations under treaty mandates flowing from this referendum, should legislation be passed to settle forever any outstanding treaty obligations? That follows an infringement, but I think an infringement is correct under those circumstances.

One of the other things that TNAC recommended was sort of an accountability. The recommendation to the federal and provincial governments was that treaties in British Columbia should be primarily settled with cash, and I would suggest significant amounts of cash. Several things will result from that. One is that this negotiation industry will subside, and there won't be that expense, and it gives flexibility to aboriginal communities who are involved in treaty negotiations to go out with that large amount of cash and make investments in Crown land, if they want a land component. They could buy sections of an industry. If they want to buy real estate in Vancouver, it doesn't matter. It should be their decision. That was part of the basis of the settlements in Alaska. Some of those settlements have been more successful, some less successful. I know that in Kenai, in that private corporation they had, $86,000 (U.S.) per person was passed out to every man, woman and child just in the last year alone. It is simple. You don't have this huge expense of doing all this, and given what's going on and on and on, I think that format should be examined. It also gives you accountability. You know what it costs, putting value on something that you don't know the value of.

That's a recommendation coming from me and the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Paddy. Are there any questions from anyone for Mr. Greene?

D. MacKay: Paddy, just a comment. As you were drawing to a close in your presentation, you mentioned a couple of words that rang true with me. You mentioned finality when it was over. You talked about fairness to the people of British Columbia, but one thing I didn't hear from you was equality when it was over. Was that just because you didn't mention it? I assume that when this is finished, you would like to see equality between the native and non-native population as well. I did hear you speak about the fact that you couldn't keep up with the native fishermen some times when you're out there competing with them on the water. I assumed that equality was one issue that you neglected to mention.

P. Greene: Well, I touched on it when I started, Dennis, and I know I was long. I started out by saying that we're working for equality for all British Columbians. That is extremely important. We should not have different laws for different people. We should all be operating under the same thing. I think we should be fair and generous in treaty-making, but do it with a dollar and let aboriginal people choose what they want, whether it's land or whatever. I would also very strongly recommend that it should be delegated. Government should not be giving powers that exceed the powers of the province.

D. MacKay: If I could just ask one more question, Paddy. You mentioned the cash settlement on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Let's just follow that through a bit. Do you see any cash settlement that may come from any treaties down the road going to the collective band or to the individuals? Right now everything seems to be geared toward a collective process as opposed to an individual process. Individuals have

been left out, at least in my view. The individual natives on Nisga'a are probably not going to be much better off down the road. It's a collective issue. The people aren't going to be given the opportunity to make decisions for themselves with money that should have gone to the individuals as opposed to the band. Do you see any future cash settlements going to individuals as opposed to the band?

P. Greene: Not under the present system, but I think it would be a good way to go and, to me, the recommended way to go. I would be very reluctant to intrude into their side. They need to collectively make those decisions, and in secret ballot, for themselves. It's not up to me to say whether they want cash or benefits collectively or individually or a combination of both. I think there should be an opportunity for them in a ballot, such as with the referendum, when they can do it behind the ballot box so there's not the intimidation that flows around this issue quite often, including here today.

B. Belsey: Paddy, I did note that when you first started out, you mentioned equality for all British Columbians. I think that's very important. We have to safeguard the process that moves forward against any race-based solutions that may affect fishing, forestry, land, education and health care. I think it's a very important and well-made point you've made.

You mentioned the Alaska agreement. Have you had any conversation with first nations in the province of British Columbia with regards to how the Alaska agreement was worked out and any impact?

P. Greene: Well, myself and others have on two levels, Bill. Through Indian leadership we've had some exchanges and discussions, and their preferred method is to have a collective, and then the Indian leadership will decide for the people. I've talked to individuals that are not involved in aboriginal development. One in particular that I remember asking was making a cash donation, writing a cheque for the fishermen's alliance. He said: "If you think we're going to go back 150 or 200 years ago, when a couple of families ran everything in the village, you're mistaken." I said: "Well, why don't you speak out on the issue?" He was looking around, and he said: "Well, it's not the Indian way to criticize someone else's ideas." He would promote other ideas.

I understand with the Nisga'a…. There's some folks around Kincolith that are very happy. There was one gentleman who was in the fishing industry who said, "I used to be chief of….", and he named areas where he was chief, and then he said: "Now I am chief of nothing." He feels that they were shortchanged. There are different views, but you'd better be careful how and where you express some of these views. You get ostracized.

J. Les (Chair): I have a question, Paddy. I'm going to come at this equality thing from a perhaps slightly different perspective. Our Canadian constitution describes fully, I guess, what the rights, duties and responsibilities of all Canadians are. In addition to that, there is a clause that says that aboriginal rights are "recognized and affirmed." What does that mean to you?

P. Greene: Well, I think it said existing aboriginal rights are constitutionally protected, and I think it goes further than that, that any other aboriginal rights that are made will also get that same recognition. If you have an aboriginal right for some activity — food fishing, for example — that's a constitutionally protected right. Aboriginal people have that. I have zero objection. People in the commercial fishing industry have zero objection to a food fishery, for example, which is an aboriginal right. It's supposed to occur only second to conservation. There are some hunting issues that I think are probably poorly done that need some clarification. There is litigation going on around the country on some of that. I think there's one with the Metis going on right now. But I do not have a problem with existing aboriginal rights.

Where I and others that I know of in my community and others that I've talked to get a little upset is creating new aboriginal rights; for example, oil and gas. The Tsimshian and Haida say basically: "Split Hecate Strait down the middle. We think that's our territory." Well, the reality is that prior to contact, the activity, as far as we know, in that area was primarily raiding each other's territory, more Haida coming over to the mainland than vice versa, although I've learned, in reading In the Wake of the War Canoe, of a raiding expedition by the Nisga'a over into the Queen Charlotte Islands, which I thought was kind of interesting. It was a bit of a payback, but nobody was out in Hecate Strait drilling for oil and gas. This concept gets really pushed to the edge of the envelope. I understand the desirability, if there's going to be the extraction of wealth, oil and gas in Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance, that local people should, and I believe they should, have some share of it, but I would say all the communities of the north coast should. I think you need to put money into an infrastructure and have some sort of a fund for the past when that is gone.

I again refer to the community of Kenai in the Cook Inlet up in Alaska and the infrastructure that's built up. They've been extracting oil and gas out of there for nearly 45 years and figure there's another 25 years to come. There have been benefits to all the communities around there. There are well-paying industrial jobs. I think that's something we really need on the north coast right now.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Paddy, for your presentation. I've got a couple of questions on what you've talked about. I know you're not here wearing your city council hat, but I would like some perspectives from you on local government.

In the current provincial milieu there are some principles for treaty negotiations that were established back in, I think, 1990 or 1991, when the policy of the province changed and the province came to the nego-

tiation table. At least two of them are germane to the issues you've talked about: continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed, and fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests — that's not just fish — will be ensured. Given what you've said with respect to the issue of equality in your, I thought, very useful answer to the Chair, do you have any thoughts, either today or in the future, about how those principles might be amended? I think they're clearly issues that we are starting to hear about.

The other issue. In my riding in Nanaimo the issue of local government participation in treaty negotiations has been a critical obstacle to any progress in the last seven or eight months. Can you give us any thoughts about whether that's true in Prince Rupert? Is there a particular local government interest? Do you think that would provide input for people at a closer level than Victoria can provide?

P. Greene: Well, I think so. You know, they say local government is closest to the people. I think that by and large the relationship with local government and the surrounding aboriginal community is fairly decent and is probably helpful on both sides. The parties know each other a little bit.

You talked about principles originally in the treaty process. We were told clearly that private property was not on the table. That has been eroded. I think that was a terrible move, but the previous government did that. It just opens everything wide open. We're looking for certainty and stability, and this erodes that.

With treaty negotiations, if you're negotiating, you can't be litigating at the same time. "Well, if you don't give us this, we're going to sue you over here." When a suit starts, negotiations should end, and that principle has wavered as well. There are some that are suing one side and still wanting to negotiate as well. If someone is suing my sorry gluteus maximus, I sure as heck am not going to sit down and negotiate with them. Take your pick — one or the other.

The other thing that I feel very, very strongly about — and this is, unfortunately, with over 15 or 20 years' experience in this area — is that government should not be afraid to litigate. The previous NDP government didn't want to get into litigation at any cost. They deliberately lost Delgamuukw on appeal. It was an absolute travesty what they did. Our little group has been very successful in petition cases in the courts, and we did it way cheaper than the guys on the other side, funded by our taxpayer money. If you have good council and the law and principles on your side, you should be successful, notwithstanding that any time you go to court is a bit of dice roll at times. You know, you've got to look at it very carefully.

With the greatest respect to your Attorney General — I think the gentleman is swamped — I hope you guys are supporting him to get the resources and help that he needs, not just on this file but many other files. It's very, very important what's going on. He's a very busy man. You need time to ponder some of these things. There are those around here in this province who have been pondering these issues and have developed a great line of thought. Unfortunately Mel Smith, one of the best constitutional authorities in Canada, is not with us today. If any of you have not read his book, I strongly suggest you do so.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, I have two more questions from Mr. Nettleton and Mr. Chutter, and then I think we'd like to move on to the next presenter.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): With respect to your perspective on commercial fisheries, I think that's very helpful in terms of what we have to do after we've concluded our public hearings. Within the context of what it is we've been asked to do — that is, in and around the referendum — have you given any thought to how some of the concerns that you've expressed about the commercial fisheries should be addressed within the context of the referendum? If so, how might they be addressed?

P. Greene: Well, as I said before — and I thank you for the question — I worked very closely with my friend and associate Phil Eidsvik. He has made an address, talking to folks earlier, and there are a number of questions that are set out in this. Please refer to it. I think they need polishing; I think they need more thought. I think we need the parallel resources to do this.

With what the feds have done to the fishing industry, it's harder to raise money. We've been stressed out financially, just from penny to penny, to be able to fight some of these issues that I think, quite frankly, the provincial government should have been supporting over the last nine years, and they haven't.

Some of those questions need to be more polished and further developed. Pleaser refer to them. I've gone through them all and helped Phil work on some of them, and I would recommend them to you.

D. Chutter: My question was along the lines of what you just referred to. I want to know a little bit more about what you were referring to. Who is that person? Are they questions that we're going to hear about, and are they questions that you fully support?

P. Greene: Yes. I understand Phil Eidsvik, who is here, made a submission in Vancouver. You guys should have a copy of this.

P. Greene: Please refer to it. These were developed over some period of time with a great deal of thought from people in the fishing industry and Phil's bright, shining mind, not that they can't be improved on, but I think you'll get the flavour of where we're going.

I don't want to be repetitious, but I think you should really be thinking strongly about the example of

the commercial fishing industry on the coast of British Columbia. We have high unemployment in Prince Rupert, but over on the Queen Charlotte Islands it's way worse. Up in villages around here it's way worse. The mainstay of that industry has by mismanagement…. I'm not talking about stocks — you know, viable stocks. There's a perception that the fish stocks are in a bad state in some areas. That's not so, particularly up here. We've had, for example, one of the largest coho runs in the last 50 years up here and abundant sockeye. What's changed is the federal government's move to what is called weak-stock management. I don't have time to go into it all. If you're interested in that, Mr. Hunter, who is involved in the fishing industry, can explain to you what weak-stock management is. It's been terrible for this community and the surrounding communities. There are other ways to do it. It's been very punitive.

In their buy-back program they're talking about willing sellers and willing buyers. You know, we won't force you to sell your boats and your licences, and we may buy them if you're willing to sell them. Of course, what they've done is they've changed the rules and bankrupted most of the folks in the villages and communities around here. Yeah, you're a willing seller now, because you've been put out of business. Fortunately, the biggest block of licences here….

J. Les (Chair): You're threatening to wander off. I understand that, because obviously you're fully engrossed in fishery issues.

I want to thank you, Paddy, on behalf of the committee for making a presentation today. If you manage to do some further polishing on those suggestions that have come from yourself and from Phil Eidsvik previously, we would certainly welcome any further submission, perhaps in writing, that you would like to submit to us.

P. Greene: Thank you very much. I think what you're doing is very important for British Columbia. Keep up the good work.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you. Always good to see someone from our previous association in municipal government.

H. Gray: Good afternoon. My name is Howard Gray, a long-time Prince Rupert resident. I've been involved in the forest and fishing industries all my life, and I've been party to a number of different panels and groups that have toured the province from the start of the land claims process in the public consultation era.

It's really hard to know where to start, because there are so many issues. One of the things that is of the biggest concern to me is the Nisga'a land claim method, which has been somewhat settled, and the implications that it has on British Columbia and business in British Columbia. I understand that they're not looking to use this as a model for the rest of the province.

Having worked mostly in villages on the north coast, in one way or another and certainly in close proximity, I have absolutely no idea why the federal government and, to a lesser degree, the provincial government have allowed the villages to grow in the way they have with federal- or taxpayer-supported dollars with absolutely no economic activity or economic benefit to support the numbers of people that are returning to those areas, whether it be Fort Simpson or the Nass Valley or the Queen Charlotte Islands.

What's happening now as an afterthought on the part of the federal government, for sure, is that they've been trying to settle their part in the land claims through resources, mainly fish, which the north coast communities and the mid-coast communities — in effect all the coastal communities, both native and non-native — depend on.

One of the things that Paddy was talking about was the transfer of licences by willing or not necessarily unwilling participants in the commercial salmon fishery. The largest area of concern I have in that regard is these licences. I don't know how many people know this, but once they go from a non-native to a native, they in fact go to the band. That's in perpetuity. That is not an opportunity for my children or your children or future generations outside the native community to participate equally in those commercial ventures. We're seeing the same kinds of things happening in the forest industry. I don't know where the business community fits into this.

In the Nass Valley there are some fairly large pieces of property that are owned by non-natives. You have no say as individuals on governance, what you can do or can't do with that property. It's not like a municipal government; it's not like a regional district. It's in fact owning a piece of property that's inside a closed border, because it is in fact private property. The reserve is private property, and access can be denied. As far as having equality, it doesn't exist. It does not exist in that area. If this is applied to the rest of the province in any way, shape or form, what would resemble that, I think it's totally unacceptable.

Paddy touched on most of the points I was looking to make, so I won't bother going over them again, but I certainly hope that at the end of the day there is some finality on this and that we do have equality. What we have right now is a government-sponsored, mostly federal government, mini-space economy, certainly in our area. That is not acceptable. I think that if you're going to move forward, then the reserves should be done away with. There should maybe a Sechelt type of model, where they have some type of regional district or municipal status, where anyone living in that community can have a say and own property.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Howard. I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Paddy. The constitution seems to contemplate an aboriginal right that is beyond what Canadian citizenship is about. Obviously, that

H. Gray: Well, I think what it implies is that they have a right to sustenance. We have a legal obligation for housing, schooling, education, which has been altered over the years or has certainly been applied in a different way from what its original concept was. What I take exception to, as Paddy mentioned, is the misuse of resources in hunting, fishing and a whole number of other areas that are done for commercial purposes rather than for what the intended uses were, and there seems to be absolutely no willingness on the part of the lawmakers to enforce any of the rules that would apply, obviously, to both natives and non-natives.

J. Les (Chair): Do you think that aboriginal right also extends to the original occupation of the land?

H. Gray: No, I don't, because they didn't occupy all of the land. They only occupied a very, very small part of it.

J. Les (Chair): Further questions? It appears not. Thank you, Howard, for coming this afternoon. We appreciate it very much.

The next presenter is Michael Tarr on behalf of the Prince Rupert Economic Development Commission. Good afternoon.

M. Tarr: Good afternoon. My name is Mike Tarr. I am the president and chief executive officer of Northern Savings Credit Union, which operates banking services in the Queen Charlottes, Prince Rupert and Terrace. I've been asked by the Prince Rupert Economic Development Commission, which I'm a member of, to appear today to talk briefly about our position in regards to the referendum.

We feel very strongly that the economic conditions in this part of the province, for sure, require very quick movement to settle treaty issues. We've received a fair number of signs of interest from outside investors who want to look at the north coast area as the place to invest their money for industrial development who are not at this point in time because they feel constrained by the uncertainty and lack of finality that seems to surround the treaty-making process.

We've heard today already — and you know better than I — about the amount of time and money that has been spent trying to resolve treaty issues and the lack of progress that has occurred over the years. It's our belief that we really need to start moving the process forward as quickly as we can. We acknowledge, and I think everyone in this room acknowledges, that the process has come to a screeching halt at this point in time. We feel as a result that the efforts to further educate, refine and develop the issues are adding to the delay of getting the treaty process moving forward.

Other than just talking about outside investment, we also believe that the inability of this province to move forward and start the process rolling generates a real economic barrier in this part of the world to the first nations people and their ability to have the resources to begin investing in new business ventures. As we look and see the end of the old economy and the development of the new economy in our region, it's clear to us that the native people, who represent a significant percentage of our population, have to play a very meaningful role in the development of new business opportunities. They can't do it now because of the number of financial constraints that they have. So we think not only are we stopping outside investment in these communities, but we're also stalling the development of first nations as significant investors in economic development here.

From our position as a quasi-independent organization that really is, after all, a service to the city council here in Prince Rupert, we strongly urge the process to move forward quickly. We would have preferred not to have seen a referendum, but it's clear that that is going to happen. We would really ask people to move this thing forward as quickly as possible. The economic divisions in this community, in this region, are in a crisis position at this point. We're beginning to see an outflow of capital, and within a very short period of time this will be beyond a recession for this region of the province. So we urge speed. Basically, that's the message that I was asked to come and deliver today.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Mike. I'm sure there's going to be a number of questions, and I'll take the Chair's prerogative in terms of asking you a question first You're aware, I'm sure, that the treaty process has been underway now for eight years.

J. Les (Chair): That's not the kind of speed that I think you're urging us to get going with. You want to get it done quickly. What do you suggest?

M. Tarr: It would appear that the current process has screeched to a halt. My assumption is that there are going to be new rules developed in terms of how the process will move forward. It's our belief that those new rules need to be established very quickly and that there needs to be a time limit placed — I think Paddy Greene talked to this earlier — in terms of how long we can wait for those negotiations to come to an end and a settlement be determined. At the end the government may have to come to some kind of decision-making format that allows those settlements to go ahead.

We believe that the process, as we've seen it, is one that is simply not going to create any kind of impetus for successful negotiations to come to an end. We recognize how difficult it is. We're not suggesting that we have any better solutions at hand for you, but we do think the government, now that they've embarked upon this process of negotiating treaties, needs to move this forward as quickly as they can.

M. Tarr: A couple of things come to mind. In my view, there's no cut-off, no goals set in terms of when these negotiations have to be completed. It's an open-ended mandate, if you will. I think that there are parties in all areas — in the native communities, in government and so on — who do not feel that it's important to move this thing forward quickly. They want to get the very, very best. They want to optimize the decision. In a time when, I think, a lot of people in this part of the province are starting to hurt very badly economically, we need to move ahead on things like oil and gas and so on as quickly as we can. It's my view that there has been sort of leg-dragging going on on all sides — on the community's side, on the first nations' side and on the government's side.

R. Visser: At the moment there is probably no difference between the North Island and this area in terms of economic development. Part of the task we've been given, I think, is to try to come up with new ways to facilitate this process. You're asking for new rules. I may be repeating John's question. You don't have any sense of what these new rules might be?

M. Tarr: I'm not coming here as an expert in this area. I don't have the background that Paddy Greene or others have who have looked at this for years and years. I'm coming to urge that the current educational process that's going on be completed. This thing has to be completed. I would hope to see this committee get its report out quickly and that we work towards some finality, at least in terms of the referendum, as soon as possible in the new year.

I wouldn't pretend to say that I have a clear understanding of all the issues that need to be resolved, but I think there has to be some kind of end point put to the whole process. If we're sitting around here eight or ten years from now having the same conversation, then I think the opportunities that are out there right now will have passed us by. A lot of these native communities who are hurting just terribly in terms of employment issues and social issues will be that worse off.

G. Trumper: You are a member of the Prince Rupert Economic Development Commission?

G. Trumper: Have you had any connections with the aboriginal community on economic development here?

M. Tarr: Yes, we do. We meet regularly with local communities on a number of issues. Certainly a member of our commission the president of the Simpson tribal council. In our credit union in Prince Rupert probably about 50 percent of our membership are first nations people. We deal a great deal with economic and business issues related to those communities.

G. Trumper: I come from an area that's probably not quite as bad as Prince Rupert is at the moment.

G. Trumper: It's economically depressed with the fishing industry down the tube and the forest industry down the tube and communities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, that have been hit really hard. We did have 14 bands in the process, and they did get to an AIP. There was sort of a false deadline put on getting to an AIP in March, for some very obvious reasons, to try and get it together. It was turned down by 60 percent of the population, so they are back to square one with huge debts for the bands. There are about 6,000 Nuu-chah-nulth members. They've got a huge debt for the bands, and now they're not quite sure where they're going to go, because some bands have approved and some haven't. Part of the reason, I'm sure, was because of this deadline that was put to try and scramble to some AIP that could be put in place. Now, of course, the whole thing is down the tube.

One of the things that became very apparent was that not only did the non-aboriginal community not understand what was taking place, even if there had been education processes in place, they may have been listening but their ears weren't open. Also, the same thing for the aboriginal community. The negotiators obviously didn't get back to their communities to explain to them what was going on. There was a lot of unhappiness amongst them. Have you any suggestions on how we as the larger community are able to get the attention so that people understand what is taking place with treaty negotiations?

M. Tarr: No, I don't. I share your frustration. I am incredulous at times at the lack of appreciation or understanding that the average citizen seems to have for a process like this, which is so vital. I'd say, it's more so in the hinterland of the province than elsewhere. It is difficult for me to understand why the average citizen would not pay more attention to this. I don't have any quick solutions to this, but I do think that once things get put on the table, once we start to get real in terms of what the deal is going to look like…. Okay? Let's get beyond the formality and questions of the constitution and so on. What's the deal going to look like? What's going to happen? This happened, I know, in the Nisga'a situation. Once it became clear what was at stake, what was going to change, then people very quickly began to understand what the issues were. By then it was way too late. I think the public really doesn't pay attention until they actually see something concrete put forward that speaks to their own understanding of land or money or fish or whatever it is that's at stake. So the sooner those issues become better known and understood and perhaps more graphically illustrated to people, the faster people begin to pay attention. At that point, you get people's attention, but up till then, it's an academic exercise, particularly when you have a process that's dragged on with no real major results. I mean, people just give up. We live in a world where the attention span of the average person isn't all that great to start with.

I think that if the process is slowed down, if real issues or real things having to do with land and money and people and government and things like that are not expressed early in the process, then nothing happens. The way the process happens is that those things don't get dealt with until the very end, and there's this long sort of process of talking about principles and building the thing around that. I understand the reason for that, and I appreciate the process from an academic point of view, but as a practical businessman I'll tell you that I spend a lot of time looking at people across my desk, and it's not until we get to the bottom line of the deal that I really start paying attention. The rest of it is just talk.

J. Les (Chair): You referred to a lack of knowledge perhaps applying more in the hinterland than in the more urbanized area. In the urban area I think there's a common perception that this is something that's being done in the hinterland, so I 'm not sure the knowledge level is all that much better. That's just an aside on my part.

M. Tarr: No. You misunderstood me. What I was saying was that I'm surprised that people in a community like Prince Rupert…. There are informed people here today, I'm sure, but there's a lot of people in this community that don't understand any of that. It really directly affects their lives and the lives of their kids, yet there's only a handful of people that I would say really understand the issues that are at stake.

V. Anderson: Thank you for your presentation. Following up on that, there are other areas that we could discuss, but your area is particularly economic development. One of the realities that I hear about in Vancouver, as well as other places throughout the province, is that there are two geographical areas of development, if you like. There's what we call the rural area, and there's the urban area. Have you any suggestions how the urban aboriginal can develop economically in an urban area even as the rural reserve areas are redeveloping economically? When is it they can complement each other? At the moment there seems to be tension between them. Is the treaty process a way of getting at both of those contingencies of people?

M. Tarr: Well, only if the treaties start to deal with people as people and not as organizations. That will never happen as long as you're dealing with governmental or collective bodies. You know better than I that unless you're able to deal with people on a human level, that sort of combining of interests will be unlikely to take place. In the Nisga'a situation, not that I was an expert in it, as an observer it struck me that there were people that felt really disenfranchised by the process, and those very often were Nisga'a citizens who lived outside the area, who had moved to Vancouver or wherever. It was difficult for them to feel part of that whole process.

This goes back a long way. In 1961 or '62 the Chant commission on education in this province talked about two provinces. It talked about the lower mainland and then what they call "beyond Hope." That term has become pretty well standard to understanding this province, about how our economy is really divided into two major regions. That's changing a bit, because there are now pockets of the rural economy that are becoming self-sustaining, but ladies and gentlemen, I can tell you — and you know this if you come from any part of the province outside of the lower mainland — that there is a big sucking sound in this province. That sucking sound is the capital that flows out of rural communities into the lower mainland, into southern Canada and into the United States and elsewhere. Until communities up here have the ability independently to retain more of that capital and to invest in their own industries, then I think we're going to continue to have that kind of problem. What we see happening in native communities is similar to what we see happening in the larger society: the disenfranchisement that occurs when you lose control of your local economy.

D. MacKay: Mike, I have to say that I agree with the frustration level that you experienced with Nisga'a. That was the first time I become aware of what was going on within the treaty process. I worked hard to get Mike Scott elected to the federal government. I can remember asking Mike to see if he could find out what was involved and what was on the table with Nisga'a. He was told that he was not privy to that information. Now, here was a man that we had just elected to represent us in Ottawa, and he was told he was not privy to the information.

The process that was used in Nisga'a cannot and should not ever be used again. The people have to know what's going on if there's going to be any trust. I think that's where a lot of the distrust with any treaty process today originated, from the way the Nisga'a thing was handled. We want to avoid that at every cost. I would suggest that the reason we're here talking to the people is to prevent that from happening again.

You talked about the quick action needed to resolve the treaty process. I'm going to put you on the spot now. Like you, I support a quick resolution to the treaty process. I know people who are getting close to retirement now, and their whole career has been treaty negotiations. They've been involved in a whole career as a treaty negotiator. Why would you want to end it when you're being paid the money that some of these treaty negotiators are being paid? I would like to see an end to it, as would many people, I would suggest, in this province.

I'm going to ask you if see one of the questions being put on the referendum as being: "Should there be a time frame put on the negotiations?" To put you further on the spot, what is an adequate time frame to resolve these issues, in your mind?

M. Tarr: Once the basis for the discussions revolving around the development of a treaty are agreed to — I don't know what that should be, but I would say no more than one year to 18 months — then I think a three- to five-year period should be put for finality.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Mike, for your presentation. Some of your observations about the sucking sounds of capital…. You don't have to be this far north to hear them. They happen on mid-north Vancouver Island as well.

I wanted to pursue something you said when you talked about the economic barrier that aboriginal people have. You made the observation that we need our aboriginal citizens, like everybody else, to play a meaningful role in economic development and that they can't do it now because of financial constraints. Can you tell me what you meant by that?

M. Tarr: Well, the funds available to native communities are typically of a collective nature to the governments of those communities, so it depends from community to community how those funds are used for investment. In some native communities they have been very successful and investment programs that have resulted in significant improvements in job creation and so on, but in others there hasn't been.

Although I'm not a rabid free-enterpriser, I am a free-enterpriser. I believe very strongly that in any community, native or otherwise, there are people who are able to take advantage of economic opportunity, invest in it and work hard to make that work for them, their neighbours and their community. Until we get to a day when we can allow that to happen in a way where individuals or groups of individuals can form organizations to invest, the constraints that we have, the political constraints in the villages themselves, and the lack of certainty as to what funds will be available are stopping people from making those investments.

Paddy was talking about the fishing industry, which he knows a lot better than I do. I know the financing end of it pretty well. I can tell you, there's a lot of people right now who are very good fishermen, who have a lot of the necessary skills and so on, but simply lack the capital individually to be able to invest in the business. Until they have an opportunity to have access to some of those funds through the finalization of treaties, I don't see how those people are going to manage or cope in an industry that is more and more shoving out the small operator and being kinder and kinder to the large operator.

M. Hunter: Given that most of us in this room are anticipating some cash transfers to the aboriginal community at large through the treaty process — in fact, some people think it should be all cash or a larger proportion of cash — and looking at our task to draft questions, would you favour a question that might seek direction to the government on how any cash transfers might be made? I use my words, not yours. I believe in the right of people to go broke, and I think when you give them that right, then collectively they can get together to make investments rather than forcing collectives to do it. There is going to be a lot of cash around. There already was in Nisga'a. Should we be focusing our attention on the cash recipients, on the individuals who could then form the collective? Is that a fertile area for a question in your view?

M. Tarr: I think it's a fertile area for more volatility. I can imagine what the reaction of the leadership in the native community would be to that. Ultimately, whether it's done through this referendum process or whether it's done through trial and error, I think the only real progress that will happen economically in a number of our communities would be through private investment of individuals that have a stake in those communities.

To the extent that a native government is democratically elected and represents fairly the people that elected them, if the people choose to use the government as their process, then of course that should be their choice. I don't think we should impose how this is done. I'm not speaking on behalf of the commission, by the way, but I can say personally that I am a great believer in individuals being able to come together freely to make investments in businesses that make sense to them. They do have the right to go broke, but they also have the right to be successful.

B. Lekstrom: Michael, thank you for your presentation. Going this late in the speakers list, a number of my questions have been asked. You asked an interesting question, and it led to, really, why the average citizen hasn't been more actively involved in what's going on. To me that's very straightforward, and I think there are two sides to that equation. I think both government and first nations have done a horrendous job of educating the public. Sitting on government side now, we're trying to correct part of that. I don't think there's any one single answer. I think the issue is one that we have to look at and make sure the information is put forward on a factual basis.

Many people, when the referendum was originally talked about, felt that this was going to be an issue to discuss whether we should or shouldn't negotiate treaties. In fact, that is absolutely not the case. We know that this issue we're travelling the province for is constitutional. There are rights enshrined in the constitution, and we do have a responsibility to negotiate, but we have to do it in a way that will work for everybody.

We are doing this tour, and the opposition has chosen not to participate in this, choosing rather to do a tour of their own, as was indicated. I also note now that many first nations will not participate because they oppose this. There's certainly consideration that they will do their own. I see that as three separate entities. It worries me greatly as a British Columbian and as a human being. Until we can get together and work towards something of a common goal to resolve this, I think we're in trouble. With three separate groups going out, I believe we'll get three different presentations and come back with three separate issues.

The process is really clear. I think what we have to do is start looking at each other and recognizing the

issues of culture and individual community. I'm making more a statement than a question to you because most of them have been asked. The key to this is that until people in British Columbia start looking at people and caring about who they are instead of what they are, I don't care how much work and how much money we put into this, I don't see it resolved. I guess I'm looking to you to see if you have any ideas on how, when we talk about education and making sure the population of British Columbia knows what has to take place…. Do you have any ideas on how we do that? One of the previous speakers was bang on. It is not through buying ads in newspapers or doing half-hour television. We have to get to each and every person and talk from both sides. I'd ask if you have any ideas on that.

M. Tarr: Well, I do. I'd like to preface it with a little personal comment. On September 11 I was on the highway, driving up to Terrace. In my car was Don Scott, the mayor of Prince Rupert. We had just heard about the attacks in New York City, and we naturally had to talk about those. We attended a meeting and then drove back. As we were coming back to Prince Rupert, Don made a very interesting comment. He said: "You know, to me this cries out for every individual…." I mean, there's not much we can do about terrorism at a macro level, but as individual people in our communities we can start thinking about to what extent people are excluded from the decision-making processes in all of our communities. Who's on the Economic Development Commission? Is it a whole bunch of white guys? Business people? Third Avenue people? Who do we include in the decision-making that goes on in our local communities, on our various boards and commissions in terms of provincial boards and commissions?

I really believe strongly that you include people — honestly, my whole life has pointed this out to me — and bring them into the process. Sure, it causes a lot of friction and can slow things down to a certain extent, but if you manage it properly, that's how you get buy-in and that's how you get interest. Education is a do-it-yourself proposition. Schooling is something that happens to you, but education is a do-it-yourself proposition. People have to be involved. For so many years in this country and others there have been groups of people who were not involved. Whether it was deliberate or not doesn't matter. It just didn't happen. I think we have to change that.

B. Lekstrom: If I could just briefly follow up. You've touched on something. When I grew up and went to school, I didn't go to school with my native friends and my non-native friends; I went to school with my friends. I played hockey and baseball with my friends and worked side by side. They were friends. They weren't native and non-native, and I didn't differentiate. Is there a possibility in your eyes? I would like to see the day when we look at each other as human beings, not looking at a non-native person or a native person and this group has this right and this group has the other. In your mind — and I know it's a pretty broad question — do you believe we can achieve that goal in British Columbia?

M. Tarr: Yes, I do. This city is a microcosm of the province. I was born here, but my parents left. I came back here in the early 1960s, and I was a school teacher for a number of years. When I first took up school teaching in Prince Rupert in 1963, there were four native people in the graduating class. Despite all the self-criticism that we're prepared to heap upon ourselves, this community has moved forward — community meaning everybody: natives, non-natives, new arrivals to the country and so on. We are all part of a revolution that is occurring in this country. We don't see it because we're too close to it, but if you look back over 30, 35 years in this city, there's been a significant change.

What I'm suggesting is that we need to continue to press on those fronts. It's so easy to fall off the wagon. It's so easy to throw up our hands in despair and say, "No, nothing will ever get better. Everybody's entrenched," and so on. You've just got to keep working at it. That's where I think true leadership comes from. The true leader isn't the guy on a white horse waving a sword. The true leader is the person that every day works away and chips away incrementally to make things slightly better. That's the kind of leadership that I think will bring people into this process. There's nothing dramatic about it, and there's no single answer. I think the closest I have to an answer is to include people in those organizations that actually are given some status and some authority to make decisions or recommendations. If you can do it at the provincial level, I think that's incredibly good. I think that at the community level we have to do more of that as well.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Michael, for your presentation this afternoon.

We're going to have a break here very soon, but before we do that, I want to ask Barbara Armitage to come forward. I believe she had a question for the committee. Don't be nervous or anything like that. You're no more nervous than any of us.

B. Armitage: Hi. My name is Barbara Armitage. I'd just like to thank you for hearing my question. My question is: can you list three ways how this referendum benefits first nations?

J. Les (Chair): I'll take the first crack at one way that could happen, and then I'll ask other committee members to join in as well. I'm going to take a very broad perspective here. What becomes more and more apparent, at least to myself as I travel around the province, is that very few people in British Columbia seem to know what the treaty process is all about. They don't understand it well at all. Yet the treaty process, as I'm sure you're aware, is very significant. It's going to involve a whole new relationship between people. It's going to involve probably a lot of land. It's going to involve the settlement of a lot of money. I think it

would be tragic if at the end of the day we settled treaties and there was some kind of backlash of people saying: "Well, we didn't know it was going on." We need to make sure that people understand ahead of time what is going on, that when we sign a treaty with whatever first nation, there is general understanding about what is happening, that people are generally satisfied. They support the process, and life can go on, hopefully for the better. So what we're trying to do is build a better support base, a better knowledge base and a strengthened mandate for the provincial treaty negotiators at the negotiating table. That will benefit not only us as government, but more importantly, that will benefit everyone in the province around the negotiating table down the road.

Anyone else? Mr. Lekstrom and then Mr. Belsey and then Ms. Trumper. We're going to give you seven or eight different reasons.

B. Lekstrom: I'll give you one very quickly. Certainly, the biggest benefit is that it will give the government with whom you're negotiating a base set of principles so that they know what they can bring to the table to negotiate and what they're going to do to represent British Columbians. An analogy I use is: if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. That appears to be what's taking place in the treaty-making process.

The biggest single issue in my mind — you wanted three; I'll give you the biggest one — is that, hopefully, it gives us some clear directive under the principles that we're seeking on behalf of British Columbians to negotiate these treaties in a fair and equitable manner.

G. Trumper: I've been involved with treaties at the local government level for the last six or seven years. As I said earlier, AIPs were initialled for 13 bands, and overall 60 percent of them, when it went to a vote, turned it down. They've got huge debts. I'm hoping that out of this and out of the discussions we have around the province and when we get to what the questions are on the referendum, we'll be able to get the process going. It hasn't worked; it's not working. There's huge frustration amongst the aboriginal people who have been involved in the treaty, and hopefully this will enable all of us to have a better understanding. We had an incident locally when the province was prepared to give one of the bands some land, which hadn't been discussed and sort of came out of the blue. The rhetoric that took place over it was appalling, something I really hadn't expected. Maybe I should have.

We have to do a much better job of informing everybody as to where we're going on the treaties. Hopefully, out of the meetings that we have around the province, we'll be able to bring the issue of treaties to the attention of everyone in the province. Hopefully we'll be able to put questions on the ballot that will be of benefit to everyone, particularly the aboriginal people. It's a very difficult issue. There's no question about it. At the moment the process isn't working, and they're hugely in debt. We've got to do it differently.

B. Belsey: I'd just like to make a point. Whenever you ask students for questions, you can rest assured you'll get some of the toughest questions that you'll hear for maybe a whole day. As a matter of fact, I was at with a grade 2/3 class today, and one little fellow asked me if I was a genius. They're tough questions.

B. Belsey: I would just like to say that during my campaign I travelled to a number of the first nations communities. Of course, one of the hottest topics was the referendum. More times than not it was made very clear that if we can, through this process, come up with questions on a referendum that will provide a mandate for those who are negotiating and the negotiation process moves ahead at a faster rate than it has in the past, then those first nations people agreed that maybe a referendum is the way to go about it. It's certainly my intention and hope that will come out of the work we are going to do over the next three to four weeks.

V. Anderson: One of the ways I would answer that is that we are learning again that none of us can go our own way. You could take aboriginals or non-aboriginals. You could take other groups. The aboriginal community, being part of the Canadian society, cannot be what it fully should be apart from the rest of society. The rest of society cannot be fully what it wants to be apart from the aboriginal community. We are partners together. I hope out of this will come, maybe, a simple question: do we really want to partner together for the benefit of everybody? That benefits the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal, because we either rise together or we fall together. I hope that's what is coming out of this.

P. Nettleton: Yes, a good question. I think your MLA, Bill Belsey, said it. I'll say it again, maybe somewhat differently. There has been a huge investment of time, energy and money by both sides of the negotiating table. In fact, some bands have not been involved in direct negotiations. They are not part of the current B.C. Treaty Commission process. Some have chosen confrontation; others have chosen litigation. In any event, we believe that what we're doing is important. We believe that it involves engaging British Columbians, informing them in terms of their obligations with respect to first nations. Ultimately, we believe that it will expedite the treaty process, which is important to you and future generations. You asked the question: how does it benefit or affect first nations? It is our belief that in fact it is a very important part of securing the future of future generations of first nations.

D. MacKay: Barbara, I just wanted to expand. I'm probably going to repeat some of the answers you got already. One of the things Mike Tarr touched on was

educating the public about the treaty process and how it's working. This committee was struck to ask the people of the province for input into the principles that should guide future treaty negotiations. We're in Prince Rupert. It's open to the public. There are native and non-native people in this room. Nobody has been excluded. We've opened it up. Anybody who wants to make a presentation is certainly free to do so. So from that, I'd like to think that some of the education portion that may have been missing in the past is going to come out again, and we'll all be better for it.

Also, an end result of this. Economic development in British Columbia today, I would suggest, is somewhat stifled because of the uncertainty over land claims issues. If we can move this process on and come to an end date down the road — and I hope it's sooner rather than later — the economic benefit is going to benefit you people, the native people, and the non-native people. It's going to benefit everybody.

R. Visser: One of the great things about being in public places is that you always expect pretty interesting questions. It's a question that's been asked of me before. I've never had to have three reasons. Can I settle for one?

I come from a family that came to Vancouver Island in 1865. We have been there for that length of time, most of it in Campbell River. I grew up there, and like Blair, we were all friends. It really struck me at one point, a few years ago, that we were heading down two separate paths.

As we got to the election, I wanted to be on this committee, because I thought it would provide a forum for us, as the government, to bring some understanding to these issues that hadn't ever been brought to this. I've thought about these issues for years. We have discussed treaties for years amongst myself and my friends in Campbell River and, indeed, across the North Island, from Port Hardy to Kyuquot. It was never in a public forum. There was never a venue for it. There was never a place for people to come and tell us what they thought the issues meant to them.

Just as the election happened — and I'll go back to where Gillian Trumper was — the Nuu-chah-nulth people rejected their agreement-in-principle. Some of them argued that it was because the leadership never brought the people along when they put it to the vote of the membership as to whether this was a good idea or not. I think what we're doing is providing that leadership to the people of this province. I think we are trying to tell them: "You need to think about these things."

When it comes time to deliver on the principles — we have 19 principles here that we've been following for the last eight years and that are, by and large, very good — at the end of the day we have to be able to be accountable for that so that when your first nation or the first nation in Kyuquot or Campbell River puts their pen to paper in an agreement and the government of British Columbia puts their pen to paper in an agreement and the government of Canada puts their pen to paper in an agreement, we know we did it with the full knowledge of all our groups and came together and did that.

I think that's the one thing you should take from here and that we are trying to deliver as the collective people of the province. We're just trying to figure out how to do that and how to move it along and how to get it so that we can see some of these economic initiatives develop. I think we're doing the right things. I think we're compressing the time frame in a way that allows us to keep moving on treaty negotiations, aside from this at the tables, but also to do this so that we can bring our people along as a collective government.

M. Hunter: Barbara, a lot has been said that I would agree with. I'll try to focus my remarks, because I think focus is what the referendum is all about. It is going to focus our minds throughout this province on the issue that we're all here to talk about. I think we have to understand that parallel to this process, or overarching what we're going through today, is a commitment from each one of us here as members of the governing party that we are going to negotiate treaties.

As I see it in my community, which is Nanaimo, the current process we have has resulted in a whole bunch of negotiations, lots of words on paper and not one single gram of understanding from the people who are going to be affected. I've convinced myself that that process, if it leads right at the outset to haranguing and arguments, is not likely to last very long. I think that if you put the question out there, make people focus their mind — and the referendum will focus the mind, just as the Charlottetown referendum did; just as Quebec referenda do, even though they're to do with different parts of the political spectrum — that is going to force us into a negotiation where the rules are clear and everybody understands them.

The aboriginal side and the federal side in the negotiation will know what the provincial negotiator's basic background of the instruction set is, and the benefit from that, in my mind, is that we end up with treaties that people have bought into in advance. No one will be able to say, as many of us did on Nisga'a or many of my constituents in Nanaimo: "Oh, I don't like this. You didn't tell me what you were doing." We are going to forestall that. That's the intention; that's what I see. I think that's hugely important.

D. Chutter: I'll just give two quick reasons that are important to me. I think it's a great opportunity for aboriginal communities, aboriginal individuals, aboriginal women and those in non-leadership positions to inform the public of B.C. of their thoughts and views.

Secondly, for me the ultimate goal of treaty negotiations is to gain mutual respect at the end of the day amongst all peoples. I don't think that's achievable if we don't include people at some point through the process. This is an opportunity for all people to be involved so that there can be support for the process, and

we can achieve that mutual respect, which certainly will benefit us all at the end of the day.

J. Les (Chair): When you ask a simple question of a panel of politicians, you get a long answer, but thank you for asking the question, Barbara. I appreciate it very much. I think your participation is helpful to us, and I would encourage more people from your community to do likewise.

We are going to take a 15-minute break. The next presenter after that will be Mr. Bruce Gochauer.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, if we can get the meeting back to order, our next presenter is Mr. Peter Lester. Mr. Lester used to be the mayor of Prince Rupert, I believe for 35 years or thereabouts, so why don't we just refer to him as Senator Lester or some other honourable title?

P. Lester: This isn't a presentation, just a question. It has been answered to some extent, but I wouldn't mind hearing a complete definition of exactly why the government wants to have a referendum.

J. Les (Chair): Pete, that has been answered in various ways this afternoon; however, let me have another go at it. Our government would like to engage in a one-time referendum on the principles to guide the treaty-making process. We feel it is important to do that to get a negotiating mandate from all residents of British Columbia and at the same time, while we're all together engaged in this process, to help British Columbians understand what the treaty-making process is about.

We have been involved in a treaty-making process now for eight years through the B.C. Treaty Commission. The cost so far has soared to an astronomical $500 million collectively that has been spent, and no results have flowed from that. We heard earlier this afternoon that many people are becoming impatient, aboriginal people as well. We need to see results for the betterment of us all. If we can get a strong mandate from the people of British Columbia to proceed, and on what basis to proceed, we feel we can engage in a treaty process that will produce results more quickly for everyone.

V. Anderson: Mandate is one word, but there's another word that I feel is important. One of the realities in the aboriginal community is that they work on a consensus model. You come together and you work. It's like a family model. You get a consensus. Everybody disagrees in part, but you have the key elements on which you have a consensus, and therefore you'll go ahead. I understand that what we're trying to get is a consensus from all of us who are concerned with this — and I think most of the people in the province are concerned — on the items on which we agree that we can go with. The ones we disagree on, we can deal with later on, but we need a consensus on the ones that we agree on. I think there are enough areas of consensus that we can move ahead. From my point of view, that's what we're trying to find.

P. Lester: I agree with the principle, but now we come down to a practical point. If there's a referendum, which is when you vote yes or no, what types of projects will be on there for people to vote yes or no? You have 60 different settlements to make, and each place is different. If you're working on principles, what principles would you work on?

J. Les (Chair): That's what we're having these meetings for — to find out from people what they feel the guiding principles should be and what questions we should ask in the referendum. I don't want to prejudge what those questions or principles might be. That's what we want to hear from the public.

P. Lester: Well, let's take today. You had people speaking about fishing, somebody else about education. Can you actually outline the possibility of what a question would be? Questions of principles could be simply giving people equality. They could be just simply generic questions which you only answer yes. The way these questions are phrased determines the answer, so I just wonder if you're not borrowing some kind of problem by actually having a referendum.

J. Les (Chair): Well, we think the referendum will be a part of the solution as opposed to a problem. I would agree with you that the questions that will be asked in the referendum need to be meaningful questions, not just generic questions. The committee will have a lot of work to do after these public hearings are complete to synthesize what those core questions ought to be.

P. Lester: You've got things dealing with fish, just for an example. I think it was Paddy Greene talking about that. So it's a question of what the allocation of fish will be in different areas, like with the Nisga'a. Would that be the type of question that's on a referendum?

J. Les (Chair): I can't really comment on that right now, because we are very early in the hearings process.

P. Lester: Well, at some point you've got to think about that. You either have a detailed question — it might be 50 items long — or you've got simplified questions, which actually mean nothing at all because they become generic.

J. Les (Chair): All I can say at this point is that we are going to be dealing with the guiding principles that surround the treaty process.

J. Les (Chair): I don't want to do that, Pete, because that would be prejudicial, I think, to the input that we're hoping to receive from the public. I'll defer to Mr. Anderson.

V. Anderson: One of the areas — and the material is here — is a question of the kind of questions we should ask. Yes and no is one type of question, and most people think of a referendum being that, but it should be a question like: "Do you believe strongly…." Say, one to five. You put your feeling down on that area, so you begin to get a consensus of the direction in which people are going.

V. Anderson: Well, do you strongly believe in this, do you not believe in it or are you somewhere in the middle? So you get a feeling of where people are going. All I'm suggesting is an illustration.

P. Lester: Are you opposed? Somewhat opposed? Or completely opposed? Something like that. Like a survey.

V. Anderson: Yeah. What we're trying to say is: "What would best convey the feelings and the beliefs of people?" Is it a straight yes or no question, or is it another type of question? That's also what we're asking people to guide us on.

P. Lester: One final question. I think it's final. Is this referendum binding on the government? Is it like an election — first past the post wins?

J. Les (Chair): Again, it's meant to guide government in the way it moves forward in the treaty process.

P. Lester: In other words, the government would do what they think best regardless of the referendum.

J. Les (Chair): No. I would hate to be part of a process, Pete, that is disregarded after the process is complete.

What I would be interested in, Pete, is have you got any observations, given your long experience in public life in this area, about the treaty process and how it could be improved?

P. Lester: No. Simply, the government is going to do what they want to do. This could easily — I won't say it will — create more disruption than before. You know it's going to agree with whatever has been said, but a referendum can be adjusted in such way that there's only one possible answer. That's my opinion.

J. Les (Chair): I disagree with the statement that the government can do whatever it wants to do. We had a cabinet minister about six years ago who said exactly that.

P. Lester: Well, within reason. That might be pretty strong, but I think it's a possibility. Since you have asked my opinion, I'd stay away from that referendum. Anyway, it's not my decision.

P. Lester: No. What you've got here is a series of consultations. My observation is that you're all very well informed, very alert. Your answers are very sensible and thorough. You make your recommendations to the government, and the government follows that policy. If you have a referendum, there might be 15 or 16 percent or whatever it is opposed to it. This way you get the opposition, but you do what you think is best based on the information you've collected. A referendum, in my mind, isn't worth the trouble, and it could be more disruptive.

J. Les (Chair): All right, Pete. Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming out today. It's good to see you again. Are you going to run in the municipal election next year?

B. Gochauer: I kind of actually agree with the former mayor on the question of a referendum. I certainly don't envy your task of coming up with intelligent questions that can be answered with a yes or no on a subject as complex as treaty negotiation. I don't think it's reasonable and possible. I heard furious scratching of pens here when the issue of finality came up. I think to come back with a question like that to B.C. is trite. I think that unless you choose to poll lawyers, everyone is going to say: "Of course this ought to be a process with an end." I think to some extent the consultation is good, but the notion of a referendum is possibly flawed.

If it does go to a referendum, there are some questions that I haven't heard answered, and I have some suggestions for some of those questions. Cost, I guess, is the big one. I'd like to know what it's going to cost. I

think all British Columbians would like to know what it's going to cost. Certainly first nations people on the other side would like to know what the final number is going to be. I would suggest, as part of a question, somewhat like Val said, that B.C. be polled for its opinion not necessarily on dollars but more in line with percentage; i.e., "What percentage of Crown land would you favour transferring to first nations as a general principle?" You need to structure it such that you don't have all of the response at one end of the spectrum. It has to be broad enough so that you know whether you're talking about 3, 5, 20 or 40 percent of Crown lands.

In a lot of cases — certainly it happened in Nisga'a, when you talk about so many hundred thousand hectares — the number doesn't mean anything to anybody. It really doesn't. If you went out to anybody and said, "How big is a hectare and what does that mean?" they couldn't say. If you said, "Do you agree with negotiations with first nations and 20 percent of Crown land being transferred to first nations?" I believe that you would have a question with a response that would mean something. I would suggest the same sort of thing when it comes to money. Clearly, we're going to be talking about land and money.

I have never seen a poll of where British Columbians stand on the amount of money they're willing to spend and the amount of Crown lands they're willing transfer. For the money I would submit questions in the form of perhaps a percentage of the budget over the next 40 years. Presumably you can't take it all out in one year. "What percentage of the budget do you favour spending?" If you put it on a case-by-case basis, it becomes too obscure. If you just simply talk about $500 million, again, unless you're a politician, a hundred million dollars doesn't mean anything to anybody in this room.

I would suggest those two questions. I'm really edgy about the whole notion of this fairness to all British Columbians and equality and all the rest of that.

As far as a mandate, again, I'll speak more to that, but the notion that this is a mandate to negotiate with first nations makes me very uneasy as well. Clearly, we're not talking about equality amongst all British Columbians. This is not a question of the citizens of Prince Rupert versus negotiating with the provincial government. This is the first nations of B.C. negotiating with the provincial government, one of the reasons for which, as the Chair pointed out, is that the constitution grants aboriginal people rights and privileges. There's no way you can paint over that and say that this does not involve race and ethnic origin, because clearly it does. To say that what we're trying to do is make everything equal for all British Columbians…. It's not going to happen, because this is what the treaty negotiations are about. We're not equal. You're an MLA; I'm not.

Again, you talked about fairness for all British Columbians. We've had a number of people say: "Well, I grew up in B.C., and my friends were native or non-native, and I didn't make any distinction between the two." As long as we're on that, I might as well kick out my story of growing up. I moved to B.C., to Prince Rupert, in the early seventies, and I went to work. One of my first jobs was in a cannery on the other side of Port Edward. This is within my memory and certainly within the memory of everyone in this room. The cannery at that time was both physically and figuratively as segregated as any plantation in Louisiana. Being a young man, I had nowhere to live, so I lived in the cannery. The cannery at that time had a white side and had all the others. I lived in the single white men's bunkhouse. On the other side of the cannery was the Japanese men's bunkhouse, the Japanese women's bunkhouse, the Chinese bunkhouse and the entire native village. So to say that there was no distinction among my friends is simply not accurate. I would say that for most of the people that grew up here it's probably not accurate either.

I would note that in the second year, when I moved out of the single men's bunkhouse and to the other side of town, I was then viewed with suspicion by the people that remained in the white section of town.

I think that to some extent the referendum process is going to exacerbate that kind of situation, because again you're drawing distinctions. When you talk about the mandate to negotiate on behalf of British Columbians for fairness for all British Columbians, you have to realize that the questions you're going to present have got to…. If it's skewed too far in favour of all British Columbians, the opportunity for the first nations people to simply opt out of the treaty process, as they've opted out of this particular process, is there, and they'll simply take it to the courts.

It's fine to come up with this mandate to negotiate, but the negotiations have to mean something to both parties. If you have a strong mandate for equality for all British Columbians — for not giving away fish, for not giving away forestry, for not giving away land, for just simply handing over some cash — I suspect you'll find that you're not negotiating with anybody on the other side of the table, because your mandate is simply too strong for somebody to come to the table and negotiate with.

The specific question is: beyond the question of how much as British Columbians we're prepared to pay for this, would it include whether or not British Columbians are aware of the cost of not settling? That is, there's a gas pipeline that's being talked about — the price of gas is down this week, so it's not on this week, but next week it will be — coming down somewhere from Alaska. Whether or not you and the first nations people actually get the show on the road and come to some conclusive negotiations could determine the route of that gas pipeline, whether it goes through northeastern B.C. or Alberta.

Some jest was made earlier on of whether aboriginal people were drilling in Hecate Strait for oil and gas. Whether or not they drilled for oil and gas is not germane at this point. The fact of the matter is that if you want to develop north coast oil and gas, negotiations have to take place and they have to take place reasona-

bly promptly. As I say, it's not necessary that they negotiate with the government. There is the opportunity of going to court, and win or lose it could take — what? — 10 or 15 years. So north coast oil and gas sits on the back burner while it goes to court.

I also consider it just a little bit odd asking all of these people about their experience with first nations people. Mr. MacKay had a better idea of asking first nations what they thought. He spoke of Mike Scott. It's been my experience that any time you go into somebody's community and ask them honestly what they think…. Never has anyone ever said to me: "Well, you're not privy to that information." If you make the effort — you travel; you go by boat or whatnot up to Kincolith — and ask them what they think, they'll tell you what they think. Anyone will. If you come into our community, we'll tell you what we think. That's what I'm doing here. If you want to know what the aboriginal people think, take the show on the road. Go out to wherever and ask them what they think.

D. MacKay: I want to expand, Bruce, on the Mike Scott issue just so you maybe have a better understanding. Mike actually phoned the negotiators and asked what was on the treaty table, and it was the negotiators that told him he was not privy to that information. He was getting feedback from different people as to what was on the table, and he wanted clarification, so he went to the negotiators.

D. MacKay: Yeah. Then he was told he was not privy to the information. In Ottawa, yeah.

B. Gochauer: Oh, yeah. Essentially, the point I'm making is that if you represent constituents and you want to know what they think, the best thing is to go into the community and ask them.

B. Gochauer: Yeah, although I will note that you are sitting in the Highliner Inn, and we're not in Metlakatla or Hartley Bay. We're not in any number of places. The other thing, essentially, is that I don't see any first nations people on this side of the table.

J. Les (Chair): I should point out to you that on select standing committees of the Legislature only members of the Legislature are eligible for membership.

B. Lekstrom: Yeah. Just a question to you, Bruce. Your comments on going back to the seventies, when you came, and the segregation…. That's obviously wrong. I mean, that's not a society any of us want to live in. The question I would have is: although that happened back then — and certainly it's not something I would support — is it your view that we have a responsibility as this generation to correct that inequity that took place 20 years ago through compensation of some sort?

B. Gochauer: On the whole I would say that I don't honestly believe in reparation. I think, by and large, what is done is done. You could go back to the Civil War and beyond. I think it becomes ridiculous. What we have to concentrate on is now and the future.

There was one question the Chair asked a previous person — Mike Tarr, I think — on how we would get the show on the road. I think everybody at this point agrees that it's important to get some closure. Clearly, a lot of money and land is going to change hands, and nobody really wants to be part of signing it away. I would suggest that the way to get on with it is to accept the fact that it's going to happen, bite the bullet and do it.

B. Lekstrom: Just a quick follow-up statement. In dealing with that, I think you're exactly right. We can't change ten years ago, and we can't change yesterday, but we can learn from our history and build for tomorrow. That's, hopefully, what we're going to come up with. That's the process we're after.

V. Anderson: Bruce, you raised a different kind of question there, just in a side comment, about whether people are aware of what the costs are if they don't do it. On the other hand, you gave percentages and that kind of thing, which was kind of the positive side of if we do this, but you just hinted about the other. Can you follow that up? That has not come up before, and it might be a way of balancing out at least part of the question.

B. Gochauer: Again, it kind of gets back to what Mike Tarr was talking about. Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that it's questions of principle that you could ask that are of interest to me that I don't already know the answers to. What percentage of B.C. is aware that treaty is only one avenue of settlement of land claim, and do we as a province know what we're getting into and all the avenues that are possible? The cost

of not having a negotiated settlement and waiting for the courts to solve it all, and in the meantime the uncertainty…. Certainly, having been in business and employed on the north coast, I know that investment and opportunity, specifically oil and gas and forestry, are going to sit largely on the back burner until there is some closure on this matter.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up on that, are you suggesting that one of the questions might be: would you prefer that treaty settlements be made through the courts rather than through mediation?

B. Gochauer: I think that would be a fine question. It's kind of a core principle as well as raising the awareness that the treaty negotiations are only one possibility. In any dispute I've seen, usually the arbitrator will say that a negotiated settlement is the best settlement. I think that a lot of British Columbians aren't aware that if the negotiated settlement doesn't take place, then the option of a judicial settlement is certainly there, imposing a settlement that we may or may not agree with it.

R. Visser: I was wondering if you had any thoughts about: are we trying to achieve one grand…? For every first nation that's at the table, should we negotiate until we get to the final deal and settle the final deal all at once, or should we have a number of small deals along the way? Is that a kind of question that perhaps we could ask? If we got a land question out of the way or a fish question out of the way…. Do you know what I mean?

B. Gochauer: Yeah. I think again that beyond a doubt the first nations communities are diverse and that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, but there ought to be an overall budget within which the government is operating. That is: "There is this much land available, and we'll apportion it this way according to the demands." I don't think you can start as an open-ended thing, negotiate one settlement after another and then find out: "Well, we've handed out 115 percent of the land." That's not at all reasonable. I think the government has to get its house in order when it comes to negotiating and know at the end what the total package is going to cost. Then you can figure out how best to divvy it up.

M. Hunter: Bruce, for a person who's stated his opposition to the referendum, I've found your remarks extraordinarily helpful, actually. I just wanted you to know that. You've put some questions forward that I think are original and different directions from what we've heard. I hasten to add that this is only day 3.

You talked about the mandate. I think we're all in danger, because we are British Columbians, of forgetting the third leg of the stool here: the feds. Have you any thoughts around the fact that these negotiations are trilateral? Are there British Columbia interests with respect to Ottawa that you think ought to be on the table? I suspect we're probably not doing our province all the service it deserves if we simply ignore Ottawa and assume that Ottawa is going to act in the best interests of this province. Do you have any thoughts about the mandate with respect to dealing with Ottawa?

B. Gochauer: Yeah. Actually, I think there are clearly areas which are separate in that Crown land is largely administrated by the province. I think there is a noticeable lockstep when it comes to talking about money. If the province has a handle on how much money it's going to spend, then it can go to the feds, and the feds are not unlikely, if it's reasonable, to come up with matching funds. I think there are also areas, such as fishing, which are clearly within the federal government's purview, and there's not a lot that British Columbia could necessarily deal with.

In contrast to this, there are some fishermen who do nothing but slag the DFO. I would suggest that the fishermen had their kick at the can with the Atlantic cod and numerous other stocks that were fished to extinction. Any one of them could have said: "Well, I'm not going to fish, because I think it's morally wrong, and we're running out of fish." I also think that the situation on the east coast with the lobster fishing, again, is most unfortunate, and I suggest that's the result of not getting your ducks in a row and negotiating and leaving it to the courts.

The problem with leaving it to the courts is that you've got one decision, and it leaves a myriad of questions open about that decision, and it goes on. It'll probably go on for another three or four years, and then there'll be another test case come back to court, and they'll decide whether they mean lobsters in the fall or lobsters in the spring and how many lobsters and the rest of it. I think a resource like fisheries needs to be administered by the federal government for the benefit of all Canadians. Clearly, if you have too many competing interests, you end up again in the situation where you have no fish at all.

M. Hunter: You and I could probably talk about that for a long time, but I won't.

V. Anderson: Following up, one of the principles is that the land made available by the province would be proportionate to the size of the population of the aboriginal people. That's one that's been suggested at one point.

Following up on your discussion, what is your response to a suggestion that came up out of the principle that overlapping claims should be decided before the treaty process moves ahead, where Indian bands have a place in common? If the province were to say, "We have so much land available which we rightly feel should belong and be transferred to the aboriginal people; therefore we will leave it to the aboriginal people to decide how that should be divided up rather

than us doing that." That's the kind of principle that leads us into new thought.

B. Gochauer: Actually, the question of land is an interesting one. I don't know if you can run strictly on the guideline of the size of the population determines the land. The Musqueam would certainly love to have a piece of the lower mainland similar to the size of the Nisga'a, and I don't think it's at all appropriate. If you live upon the land and live off the land, you need a larger piece of land than if you live in an urban centre. I mean, it's a matter of economics.

How would you handle the disputed lands, for instance, with the Nisga'a and the Gitxsan? I think that if you've allocated whatever the government budget is to land and you've got overlapping claims, there's no reason you can't sign an agreement-in-principle, with the land going to each band that is without dispute, then set aside the disputed land and subject that either to negotiations between the band or an arbitration process, if they agree to an arbitration process. Essentially, you've said: "Well, okay, this is your land, and this is your land. There's a chunk in the middle that you're disputing. How do you want to settle that? This is what's on the table. You can settle it amongst yourselves, or if you don't agree with that, we'll find an independent arbitrator that'll go through the oral history and decide on the disputed land." I don't think it's a necessary impediment to negotiations.

D. Konsmo: My name is David Konsmo, and I would like to compliment the previous two speakers on the quality of their presentations. Forgive me if I'm a little nervous. I didn't expect to be here today. In the last election I was a Green Party candidate, and I'm speaking on behalf of my party and myself. I have to reiterate the Green Party's and my own unequivocal opposition to this referendum.

The government was elected to solve, or try to solve, the problem of negotiations. This is what the people elected them to do. I don't care how you word this referendum. There's nothing about this referendum that is going to help clarify or expedite this process, in my opinion. The first nations peoples have indicated to the government very clearly — and, in fact, have even boycotted this particular meeting — that they are unequivocally opposed to this. They see it as inherently undemocratic, and there is no doubt that they will lose this referendum or, at least, perceive themselves to have lost this referendum. It is only going to add to the antagonism, the polarization and the hostility that they feel toward this whole matter. If the process is flawed — and you have said that it is — then it is the responsibility of the government and the first nations people to straighten this whole process out, to try to get it going and come to some kind of hard agreements that both sides will stick to so that we can get on with things and not have this pressure constantly over our heads.

I have to tell you that I personally have real fears about the consequences of this referendum. At least, no one that I have seen has spoken about that. This referendum has all the appearances of a delay tactic. Regardless of how it's worded or how the vote is going to come out, it's not going to be accepted by the major stakeholder, the first nations people.

I am afraid of interruptions to the transportation system, such as roadblocks, sabotage perhaps and even possibly violence. We know that this has happened in British Columbia before. We know what happened at Gustafsen Lake. We have to ask ourselves what we have learned from that. Essentially nothing has changed in that situation since then, as far as I can see. After the dust had all cleared and there was some closure to it, the province ended up paying I think millions of dollars trying to get that thing settled.

When you go back to Victoria and speak with Premier Campbell, I wonder if you could perhaps tell him that governments don't always fulfil every promise. Now, I know that he promised to have a referendum, but perhaps he could be persuaded that this is one promise that would be best to drop. I think the people of the province would have a great deal of respect for the Premier and his government if he chose to do that. He could spare all of us a lot of agony and a lot of fear and apprehension.

I think the people of the province trust the government to negotiate this with the first nations. I believe you when you say you want to come up with solutions, and I think that voters have put their trust in you. I do believe that if you proceed with this referendum, you are — I'm sorry to have to say it — betraying the trust of voters. I'll just have to leave it at that.

J. Les (Chair): You mentioned earlier, David, that government should just get busy and fix the negotiations process. Have you got any recommendations in that regard? What should government be doing to repair the treaty-making process?

D. Konsmo: I presume you have already been discussing things with the first nations.

D. Konsmo: What I meant is I presume that since you've been elected, your government has been discussing the treaty process with first nations. If both you and the first nations have the political will, I do believe you can come to agreements that you can both live with.

J. Les (Chair): You haven't answered my question. You said government should just get busy and fix the treaty-making process, and I asked you whether you have any suggestions that you could offer in that regard.

D. Konsmo: No, I don't think so. I don't keep very close track of what's been going on. I don't know for sure what first nations people want. I don't always agree, for example, with the demands I've heard them make on occasion. I'm not the person who's been entrusted with the task of finding solutions. I do worry about the kind of social unrest that I believe could result from this referendum.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I think you've just said that you haven't really availed yourself of too much information and that you're not really that familiar with the issues, but you're confidently predicting there are going to be consequences of what I believe to be a very serious process.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Any further questions of Mr. Konsmo? Thank you very much.

E. Moody: I'd just like to take this time to acknowledge that I'm appreciative of the fact that the timing was just perfect. I must express my disappointment with the structure and the places where the meetings occur. I originally come from the community of Kitkatla, up the coast there, but I moved to Terrace about four years ago. I knew this forum was going to be taking place. I have some concerns with the structure of the forum itself, and in particular I have difficulty with the idea that certain communities were selected to host this forum.

I'm employed by school district 82, in the Terrace area, as district principal of first nations education. My role and responsibility within the district would be to act as a liaison between first nations communities and first nations parents in the urban centre as well as school district staff. Hopefully, what was going to develop out of the position I hold and my role and responsibility was a greater understanding of first nations people and first nations culture and appreciation for the idea that we fit within the education system.

My concern today. I phoned my boss this morning and said: "I just found out today that that forum is not meeting in Terrace. I'm going to take off and head to Prince Rupert." I do have examples of social unrest that may occur. My belief is this. This type of forum and this type of question, no matter how it's structured, is going to raise conversation at the dinner table. From that dinner table, where do you think it ends up the next morning? It ends up in the school system. We've talk about education. A number of issues were raised. The public isn't informed, so when you start to hold this type of forum, you've got people sitting at a dinner table giving their opinions, not necessarily informed opinions. That may be first nations; that may be non–first nations. I don't see a positive outcome in this forum. I don't see a positive outcome for any type of referendum question that would be asked. It is going to raise issues within the public education system, and those issues are going to create division amongst non–first nations and first nations.

My specific example of social unrest and distrust in the Terrace area happened in the school system. We had a number of teachers in the district that chose to examine and teach about the Nisga'a treaty. They didn't necessarily seek input from the first nations community. They didn't necessarily seek input from me, my staff members or anyone that was involved with the treaty-making process to give their point of view. What we ended up having was teachers that had their own ideas about the treaty basically talking about it in the public education system.

My belief is that this system is flawed. In my mind there's only one question that should be asked, and this question shouldn't reflect first nations people. I heard reference to constitutional rights. I find it disappointing to hear that some Canadians believe that our constitutional right is to sustenance. I'd like to know where the belief is that our community is static, that our culture is static. This is what this forum and what this referendum perpetuates: the notion that we can't move forward.

Are we going to address wrongs? In my opinion, there are wrongs that need to be addressed. You as a provincial government have an avenue to address that or to begin addressing it and to begin educating the public. That's in the public education system, for which the provincial government is responsible. Take a look at the curriculum that's available. If we're going to be talking about issues and having people become more informed and more educated, the Ministry of Education should be taking a look at the curriculum that's utilized in the schools today. We should be taking a look at the issues of why it is that only 30 percent of first nations students graduate.

We look at these others. There's my friend. I don't care what colour he is. How many of those friends were with you when you walked over the bridge?

There are issues that need to be addressed. My belief is that negotiating treaties would allow communities to begin examining how it is we fit within the context of the province. My belief is that we do fit.

The question about equality. What is equality? Whose view of equality? My view is going to be different from yours. A number of issues have been raised around fishing. Here's an issue of equality for you, something I'm hoping that everyone's going to ponder when we talk about equality.

In 1968, before limited entry in the commercial fishing industry, it had always been stated that all you needed was $10. You'd go into a fisheries office, and they'd give you a commercial permit. Here's a question I want you to ponder. When first nations walked into that fisheries office and asked for a permit, what type of permit do you think they were given? Do you think it was a commercial permit, or was it a food fish permit? Now, there's an issue of equality. Did we have

With this type of information and in this forum we should be very careful about the types of responses and questions that are allowed to be put forth. My belief is that it's going to affect students in the schools. It's going to affect students big-time, my belief being that first nations students in the school system aren't going to be in a welcome atmosphere. Our school system should be providing both a welcome and safe atmosphere. When you have discussions at the dinner table that most likely are going to result from this type of forum and questions, referenda, you are going to see more verbal attacks against first nations in the education system. That glimmer of hope, that 30 percent that we do have that are graduating today, will begin to decrease, because people aren't made to feel welcome. They aren't part of the system.

In my opinion, that's the structure of this forum. That's the structure of any type of question that will be asked. In that regard, I'm hoping that I'm an incurable optimist. The perception I received today was that treaty negotiations are going to proceed. Am I wrong in stating that?

E. Moody: Okay. I'm going to make a recommendation for a question. My question, then, would be: do you have confidence in the current provincial government to negotiate on your behalf? That's my question — not reflected on first nations values and beliefs but whether the population of the province has confidence in the current government to negotiate a settlement. I came here to observe. What I wanted to gauge was public perception of these proceedings, and there were a couple of things that concerned me.

My hope would be that committee members become mindful of the ramifications it will have on the public education system. In my opinion, what should be happening isn't this forum but a focus on education — a focus on educating children in the schools on what the issues are, a focus on educating parents and communities on what the issues are. Once you feel confident that the public becomes educated, then ask your referendum question as to whether the constituents have confidence in your ability to negotiate a treaty.

This process is flawed. It's flawed because you're asking people to recommend questions to you, and then you're going to be asking them to vote on a referendum question or a survey question, whatever you want to call it and however you're going to word it. My issue is this: your committee members have already stated that the public isn't informed, so what is the result of a referendum question going to be? Your job should be to inform the public on what the issues are and then ask whether they have confidence in your ability to negotiate a treaty. It's flawed by the fact that if you already admit that a community isn't aware, how can they make an informed choice on whatever type of question you're going to pose? My belief is that when you have a flawed process with flawed questions, those flawed responses are going to work their way into the education system and it isn't going to be of benefit to first nations students.

I'll leave it at that. I just wanted the committee to be aware that I do have concerns that I'm hopeful you'll be mindful of in future presentations.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Elmer. I listened carefully to what you had to say. Perhaps a question: ought we not all to be encouraging people to discuss these issues at the dinner table?

E. Moody: Then the question becomes: are they informed enough to discuss it at the dinner table?

E. Moody: Well, you'd have a number of students going home and asking a certain amount of questions about issues regarding first nations and government and what the relationship is like. I heard reference to article 13 in the B.C. Terms of Union in 1871. I've always used that as a teaching tool when I've talked about treaty-making. At the time the Nisga'a treaty was being implemented, we had some teachers within the Terrace area request our assistance in talking about why we're at the treaty table.

There's a story from my community about first contact: the story of Sabaan. Every time I started talking about treaties I always told about the story of Sabaan before I did anything else. I asked students — they weren't specifically first nations students — how they would categorize the relationship in this story. Reciprocal exchange. Understanding. We took a look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763. I had them read through it. What do you think the relationship was like? How would you categorize it? The idea was still the same — cooperation. Then we brought out article 13 of the Terms of Union and read through it again. What was the relationship? How would you categorize it? It's one-sided.

Whoever gave anyone the right to say that we're going to give you charge of the Indians? Were first nations involved and said: "Yeah, we're going to go and start being under the charge of the Dominion government"? We took a look at the Indian Act. What is the relationship like? It's one-sided.

My point in all of this is let's take a look at what the process of treaty-making is all about. What is it that we're trying to accomplish? To get back to the understanding that we have a relationship to one another, and that relationship needs to be cooperative.

I have my own points of view on treaty negotiations. All I wanted students to understand out of the treaty-making process was that it was about building

relationships. We never discussed areas of injustices. It was just about relationships. That was my approach to providing some sense of understanding from my perspective of why we're at the treaty table.

J. Les (Chair): I know there's other questions here. I'd just like to make one further comment, Elmer, and that is simply this. When we meet for an afternoon or for an entire day — and it doesn't matter what forum it's in, and I've been chairing meetings for quite a portion of my life — there are many times when things are said that I don't agree with, and I'm sure you've had the same experience. There were some things said this afternoon that I agree with wholeheartedly. There were other things that I disagree with just as wholeheartedly. However, I think it's important that everyone has the fair opportunity to say what they believe — provided, of course, it's not offensive. That is a healthy process so that people can air their thoughts. I think we're doing this in a manner that we all hope leads to constructive solutions. That's why I'm here. I'd rather be here as a tourist, but we have important work to do. I hope this process leads to results, leads to solutions, leads to building those relationships that you talk about.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks for your presentation, Elmer. A couple of questions, I guess more so I can learn. There is not a day goes by that I don't learn something new. If you ever reach the point where you can't learn something new every day, it's time to move on.

You talked about the fishing licence and the commercial licence, I think referring to 1968. Just a comparison, so I can understand it. In 1968 if you and I walked in to buy that commercial fishing licence, you're saying I would pay $10 and get a commercial fishing licence and you would walk in and not get the same licence? Is that my understanding of what you said?

E. Moody: Well, that's one way I talked about injustice. A number of speakers made reference to the fishing industry. My father was in the commercial fishing industry at the time of limited entry, and like everyone else he had to buy his way into the industry. Previous to that, my understanding was that only a native was $10, and you're going to be given a permit for commercial fishing. My question and my hope would be that when people take a look and talk about the injustices in such industries and the idea that our culture is static and we're dependent on whatever form of resource has sustenance…. The question then becomes, in my belief, that there are a number of people who couldn't get access to the commercial industry. At the time of limited entry, the permits we had been assigned in most cases would have been for sustenance. In that regard, we'd have no history of settling this.

B. Lekstrom: Okay. If I could just follow up then. Talking about the concerns you have with the process we're going through, I'm a believer that what we've done over the last eight years hasn't worked. I don't think it has worked for either side, to be honest with you. I'm sitting here as a member of the Legislature and a member of this committee looking at a new avenue to try and make sure that we can move this process ahead, and that's ahead for both sides. I note that you do disagree with this process, and when you talked about education, are you saying educate and then utilize a referendum process? Would you support that?

E. Moody: My preference and my beliefs would be as an individual. I'm not representing any nation and any community. I have concerns with the length of time the process is taking under the former government and under the former process. My belief is this: rather than focus the energies on developing a referendum question, government should be focusing their energies on developing their position papers, providing their negotiators with the ability to sit down with first nations community members and negotiating in good faith. Your negotiators won't have to walk away from that table and say: "I'll need to consult such-and-such a person. They're my higher-up." Develop a position paper. Develop your principles. Give it to your negotiators. Have them sit down in good faith with first nations representatives and hammer out a deal. My observations are that the reason it takes so long is that negotiators need to confer with whomever they need to confer with. You've got to cut out the middleman.

B. Lekstrom: I'll close and be very brief. I think we all want to get to the same end point, and that's a result of this. The only difference that we're speaking about here this afternoon is how we get to that point. We're saying: "It wasn't working. We're going to change. We're going to try this approach." I know we'll hear many different approaches that should be used, but I think that at the end of the day, we all want to get to the end result, and that's fair, equitable, signed treaties. I'm certainly a true believer in equality and in individual voice, of course.

We could talk for hours on this. It's intriguing to deal with it. I thank you for your presentation.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. You made the comment that education should start in schools, hopefully, and then educate the parents, which seems to me to be rather a long time in happening, if children are hoping to influence their parents' thinking. That then puts getting a treaty sorted out, which all groups of all of the various agencies are anxious to finalize…. So who do you see doing that education in the schools, and how?

E. Moody: The curriculum itself needs to reflect first nations cultures, values and beliefs. My culture's values and beliefs are similar to some of the curriculum

that's already in our school system. The failure exists when people don't understand that some of the same concepts of our culture are readily available there.

I may have implied that the teaching should start in the school. It should, but that shouldn't restrict the government from doing whatever it needs to to ensure that the public is informed just as well as those in the school. If we are talking about relationships, it has to happen in the schools — social studies, personal planning. There are a number of avenues to incorporate an examination of government-to-government relationships. It can happen in a provincial educational system.

G. Trumper: How do you get the attention of the adult population, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, in the discussions? You are saying this is the wrong forum, but how do you get that debate going in an open fashion so that people do understand what's taking place? Some of the things that have happened in the negotiations that have been going on and have got to an agreement-in-principle level have caused major concerns amongst all communities involved, be it the aboriginal or the non-aboriginal community. We've got to get over that. I see this forum as one of the tools in trying to get some of that information out. We haven't done a good job of it in the past. Nobody has. So how do you see us doing that?

E. Moody: Scrapping the referendum question or the perception that a referendum question is going to occur within a year.

G. Trumper: So are you saying, then, that we need to get out to inform people? So a treaty being finalized may be a good many years down the road.

E. Moody: When finality is mentioned in terms of treaty negotiations, my hope is that any treaty negotiated would be final. As a first nations individual I have no questions or concerns when I come to the understanding or take a look at it and realize that whatever has been negotiated has been negotiated based on our interests. It should be final, but educate people, better inform people. Suggestions have been made about speeding up the process, but speeding up the process isn't going to inform people.

My suggestion would be that as a working committee, yes, postpone the referendum question, and here's what you're going to work with. You're going to get out there and start educating the public. Money has been made available to first nations organizations to inform whatever or whomever. Your government has set aside money for this forum, so if you're looking at establishing a referendum question on the principles of negotiation, why not find out from the public what those principles should be? Develop your mandate and present that mandate in the form of a referendum question. Do you have confidence in the current provincial government to negotiate based on these principles? But you need public education. When I suggested that this forum isn't the place to do it, it's the perception that you're soliciting ideas for the type of referendum question that's going to be posed. My point is that if you've already stated that the majority, or a good percentage, of British Columbians aren't informed about the treaty process, how is it that you hope to develop any type of question? My sense is that we need to step back and say: "Okay, this referendum will be postponed. We'll develop what we feel are the principles that will be negotiated." Then, if the government so chooses, proceed with the referendum.

P. Nettleton: That was an interesting presentation. I think we share perhaps not your commitment to education so much as your understanding of the importance it plays with respect to the issue that lies before us; namely, treaties and how we get there.

I just thought I'd mention one little thing that may interest you. I'm sure the curriculum varies from district to district. I live in Fort St. James. My daughter has just gone into grade 1. They have within their curriculum — the reason I know this is because they involve the parents inasmuch as the parents have some ability to decide whether or not their children participate — hat's called Carrier. As you know, Carrier is the group of first nations that dominate that part of the world — Fort St. James, Prince George and beyond. I think that's progressive. That's hopeful. I'm not sure they discuss treaty issues in grade 1. We'll probably discuss those at home over the course of the next few weeks or months. In any event, I think that's a hopeful sign in terms of the long term.

E. Moody: It would be interesting. Most of the discussion around treaty issues and government relationships starts occurring around grade 7 to grade 10. That's where you have more understanding of what the systems of government are like. In my role as a first nations educator I had responded to a request to submit a proposal — it was a few months ago; I can't remember the name of the nation — in the Quebec area. Basically, they were asking for submissions on ways to integrate the teaching of self-government, concepts of self-government, beginning in kindergarten. At the primary level people are looking at the possibilities of talking about how first nations governments operate. I don't believe it would be a difficult thing. Basically, my perception is that we need to focus on relationships.

V. Anderson: Thanks very much for coming, Elmer. I appreciate very much that you've done this and taken the effort to come here. When you had your question — do you have confidence in the government to negotiate treaties on your behalf? — I had some questions about that. The very suggestion of referendum has brought groups from all sides of the ledger with very heated comments that the government didn't know what they were doing, and they expressed lack of confidence in even having a referendum. For the government to suggest at this point in time that people have the confidence in them to do that could bring the same initial reactions before we even get to the voting. Then you added a little later on the suggestion that the

government put forth their suggestion of what the principles should be and ask people to approve or disapprove the mandate giving confidence. Is that what you're suggesting? The extension of your original question is, based on the package you are suggesting that the government puts forward, do you have confidence in giving the government the go-ahead or not to move in this direction? Would that kind of approach be equally acceptable in your mind for the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal community at this point?

E. Moody: I won't suggest that it's good for an aboriginal community. I speak for myself, my own belief being that I'd find it acceptable. If the government were to take the time to develop position papers and develop their concepts or principles, were to make it known through public education forums what those principles would be, provide their negotiators with the authority to negotiate on those principles and then pose the referendum question…. The forum itself, and soliciting input for whatever type of referendum before anyone understands the principles, is flawed. My suggestion would be that it would be a way of informing and educating the public about issues that would be on the table.

V. Anderson: To follow up, here's just one question. Gillian Trumper was expressing the concern that the previous agreements-in-principle were reached both by the federal and provincial government negotiators and the aboriginal bands from her area. All of the people had understood that they had a common agreement which they had reached by common negotiation, but when they went back to the bands, they for the most part turned it down. How are we going to get to the point where the negotiators, no matter what power or authority they have, when they reach an agreement, are sure that that agreement might be maintained by their people?

E. Moody: Well, what people need to realize is that whatever situation it was, whatever community had reached an agreement-in-principle, there are going to be individuals like myself, in whatever community, that are going to be deciding: "Do I accept this or will I reject it?" I'm hoping that whatever decision the individual communities and individuals themselves come to would be an informed decision. I've always had an interest the treaty, and I've always tried to find out what was happening in current treaty discussions.

My hope is that when it comes time to vote, my opinion and my vote is going to be an informed vote, but I'm not going to deny anyone the ability to either reject or accept it. I expect that my negotiator is going to allow me the opportunity to either voice my opinion or to cast a ballot either for or against, the idea being that I'm going to have a say one way or another. It's a right that I'm entitled to.

V. Anderson: You're asking that we as a government give our negotiators the authority to go ahead and negotiate an agreement, and whatever agreement they come up with, we would accept because they'd worked on our principles?

E. Moody: I'm suggesting that giving them the authority would speed up the process, rather than your negotiators having to go back to Victoria to confer with whomever they need to confer with.

V. Anderson: I agree with that. Accepting that, would the same apply to the aboriginal negotiators — that they would have authority, so they would not have to go back, and once they had agreed, then the treaty would be finalized? If the negotiators from the government and the negotiators from the aboriginal band came together and made an agreement, they would not have to take that agreement back, either to the government or to the band, because they would have been preauthorized to make the agreement. Would that apply equally in the aboriginal community as it would in the non-aboriginal community?

E. Moody: Only if the same process were made available to first nations individuals in the communities: "Here are the principles we are going to be negotiating on."

E. Moody: If that same process isn't followed and then…. No, I'd suggest that I'd have a right to cast a ballot either way.

V. Anderson: You're saying that if we set out a set of principles and they were voted on by the aboriginal committee authorizing their negotiators to go ahead and make the agreement, that might be a way to go?

E. Moody: The aboriginal government is going to have to ensure that…. If we want the process to speed up, that would be one avenue. "Here are the principles we're going to be negotiating on: post–public education forums — what are your concerns? what are your recommendations?"

V. Anderson: All I'm saying is that what we need is a process that works the same way for both sides. I don't like the idea of both sides, but….

E. Moody: Look, my question, then, would be: why would we have to have one process for both sides? All I'm suggesting is that as a government, rather than holding these types of forums in which you solicit input for possible questions, you sit down and hash out your own ideas about what your principles in negotiation would be. The expectation on my part is that our negotiators would be soliciting that type of input from

us, as well, but at the same time allowing us an opportunity — whether it be an education forum, perhaps — for posing our own referendum and asking whether they'd have the ability to sign on behalf of our community with a clear understanding that these are the principles that are going to be negotiated.

My principles aren't going to be the same as yours. My negotiators' principles aren't going to be the same as yours. My principles won't be the same as my negotiators', but because you've negotiated on behalf of the provincial government, it's your responsibility to develop principles and that those principles be presented to the constituents of British Columbia.

D. MacKay: Elmer, you started off your presentation by saying that you don't agree with the structure of the committee. I think the Chair, John Les, mentioned that he's going to be in Prince Rupert as a tourist, and I know I'd like to be out there fishing. On May 16 we had a provincial election, and we were elected to represent our constituents. We find ourselves in Prince Rupert today, and we're going to be travelling around the province for the rest of this month.

In 1871, when the Terms of Union was signed, I wasn't present. You weren't there; nobody in this room was there. The Terms of Union was signed, and that's the reason we're here today. People that preceded us signed an act of union, and it's put us in this position that we find ourselves in today — not through our own choosing but because it's been passed down to us from generation to generation. I don't think any of us want to be here, but as I said, we are here because of that.

I heard you talk with interest about why we have to develop principles so that the negotiators can then go to the table and negotiate on behalf of the province and not have to keep running back to the province to ask: "Can we go this far afield on it?" I'd like to think that this process that we've started is going to do that. That's what we're after: the principles that will guide the future treaty process in the province so the people of the province will have a say, just like, I believe you said, when your negotiators come to you, you will have a vote on the treaty as to whether or not you accept it. I believe those were your words.

The non-native community has never been consulted in the past. I think this is the first government that went to the people of the province in a campaign and said that one of the things we're going to do is have a one-time referendum on the principles that should guide the treaty process. I don't know how else you do that unless you consult with people and talk about it. You talk about it at the dinner table. We talk about it with our children, and to educate students, it's got to get into the school system. To educate one another about the treaty process, we have to discuss it.

The structure's there. We're stuck with it. Let's make the most of it and see if we can't come to some common ground that's going to bring this to an end in my lifetime, not my grandchildren's lifetime, so you and I, when we walk down the street, have the same rights under the Criminal Code of Canada. You don't have any special rights because you're a native, and I don't have any special rights because I'm a non-native. I think we're only going to get there if we have an opportunity to talk to one another and decide on some principles that we can all agree on. I don't know how else to do it other than to consult with one another, and I think that process has started. I know there's going to be opposition to it, but I don't know how else to do it.

I guess I wanted to make a statement more than anything. I appreciate what you have to say. I listened with great interest, and I respect your views. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. I'm representing a group of people who feel we have to come to some end to this. Let's not go on forever. Let's see if we can speed the process up. I probably didn't ask you a question, but you probably want to comment on it.

E. Moody: If I can just reiterate, the whole notion of "let's get this over with" raised some concern on my part and no doubt some other people's. The idea is that principles need to be developed on your part. Provide people with an understanding of what it is you're going to the negotiating table with, and then hold whatever referendum you need to hold in order to gauge people's perception or understanding of the process itself. But it's flawed. The flawed part, what I consider flawed, is the public forum.

You see, when I came down, my perception was that a referendum was going to occur. My concern was the type of question that was going to be asked and how was it going to affect students in the educational system, because I have no doubt that it would. Go up into the Terrace area. Ask teachers in the school, ask administrators, ask employees: "What happened during the Nisga'a treaty?" I guarantee you're going to find that there was tension in the classrooms and in the hallways.

My suggestion is that yes, the process needs to be sped up, but it's not going to happen through a referendum question — not by November 30 or December or whenever it's going to be. My suggestion is that however the referendum question is going to be worded, it be postponed until the provincial Liberal government comes out and says: "Well, here are our position papers. Here are the principles we're going to be negotiating on." The question to your constituents then becomes: "Do you have confidence in our ability to negotiate based on these principles?"

I don't believe you're going to find the principles of treaty in this type of forum, where the question being put forth is: "How should we word our referendum question?" The forum should be: "What are the principles we're going to negotiate on?"

R. Visser: I think Mr. Moody came today to tell us, in part, that education is probably one of the most important things around this question. I would argue that you've made your point very well and that education is dangerous in a vacuum. I hope you understand that by being here — certainly as an equal to everyone in this

room, with a right to come and speak to us and help guide us through this process — you have in part begun that education, and we are developing those tools by you being part of this and giving us your views on it.

I'm not going to speak for the committee, but in some ways you have given me a new perspective on how we might approach this stuff. That is very interesting and certainly worthy of a lot of thought on our part.

I hope you get an opportunity to encourage other people to take part in this forum, understanding that we are here to take in all the information we can get so it doesn't get eaten up by one side or the other, so it doesn't become a vacuum. You may very well be in the end the most right person that we've heard all the way along, but the critical thing here is that you did show up and that you did tell us your point of view. You can go back tomorrow, go onto the website, download Hansard and have all the comments there. That gives part of the now–public record of what we've done. It becomes part of your toolkit as an educator to help us and help the students and parents come to terms with some of these things.

G. Trumper: Rod Visser put very eloquently what I was going to say. I think that's exactly why we're here. We want to hear from you, and I think you've certainly given us great food for thought today, like others have. I would say there are some things I've agreed with personally and some things I didn't agree with, but I think you have put forward your position on the issue of education very eloquently. I want to thank you for that.

J. Les (Chair): Seeing no other questions, Elmer, thank you for coming. We appreciate it very much.

We are now going to break until 6:30, when the next presenter is due. I suspect we will want to get some dinner.

J. Les (Chair): I'll call the meeting back to order. We're running a little bit behind schedule. I know we were scheduled to have our dinner break between 5 and 6 and ended up going till 6:30 because we broke up a little late. My apologies for that.

Mr. Dave Prosser is here. I believe he's representing the Northern Trollers Association. Welcome, and please proceed.

D. Prosser: My name is David Prosser. I've been a resident of Prince Rupert for the last twenty-some-odd years now. I'm the past president of the Northern Trollers Association. I did two terms during the restructuring of our salmon fleet, and I was determined I wasn't going to attend any more of these meetings. I've sat through God knows how many of these with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for our restructuring and all this sort of stuff and have come out of it incredibly jaded, skeptical and frustrated.

A little history. Fifteen minutes isn't much and I apologize. I just got home yesterday from what I had of a trolling season and was busy today getting rid of my fish and dealing with the boat. I had very little time to formally prepare for this, but I've been thinking about it all day.

The troll fleet, traditionally, is an offshore, wandering…. I consider of ourselves as the last of the hunter-gatherers in our society. We are out on the west coast of the Charlottes, primarily in the north, interception fishing — traditionally springs, chinook and coho salmon. We have had an incredibly rough time over the last while. Our traditional fisheries have been taken from us and awarded to the recreational sector, basically. Our good friends Bob Wright, Gerry Kristianson and Tom Bird have managed to sway the federal government to the extent that our fishery serves the people of Canada better by being taken by the recreational fishery. Therefore, what has happened to our fishery is that it's been given, carte blanche, to the corporate sector in terms of the large lodges and the commercial recreational sector.

The troll fleet is made up of independent people. We have never been unionized. We have never been represented by the companies. Therefore, we have a very, very small lobby, and we have suffered incredibly over the last while for this. This has made me skeptical of the process and of forums such as this.

I've just experienced my worst salmon fishery in 24 years in a sea of incredible abundance. This year the north coast was awash in fish. The Alaskans tell us that we had the largest coho returns in 50 years. Earlier in the year a record run of chinook salmon swam past on the west coast of the Charlottes. We were denied access to those fish. My gross stock this year looks like it's probably going to be about $12,000, where normally it's in the neighbourhood of $75,000 to $100,000 on a good year. I'm a resident of Prince Rupert. I also run a shipyard here in the wintertime. I feel that I am a contributing member to this community.

This is just background. What I want to say is: it is the government and it is process that have robbed me and my community of the rewards of the salmon fishery. Basically now the rewards go south. There's very little reward for the northern communities. The large lodges fly in all their goods. They fly in their guests. This was allocated to the commercial recreational sector. Prince Rupert, Masset and Queen Charlotte City are basically on their knees.

The reason I say this is that I'm very, very nervous about the question of a referendum on the aboriginal issue. I feel much closer to the aboriginal community on the North Coast than I do to the rest of British Columbia — the people of Vancouver, Victoria. It is my honest opinion that the federal government has been swayed by politics. This has cost me and my communi-

ties our livelihood. You must be aware that Prince Rupert is in very tough shape right now.

This summer I spent quite a bit of time in Masset, where I used to live, and Queen Charlotte City. The troll fleet used to be one of the mainstays. Those communities were just buzzing in the summertime. It was just busy, busy, busy. The troll fleet played a very large part in the well-being of these communities.

I am nervous that this process can be seen as a racist process. I'm nervous of being identified as a racist. I was during the Meech Lake debate. I was publicly called a racist in the performing arts centre here.

My point is that there is good fisheries management and there is bad fisheries management; there are good fishermen and there are bad fishermen. I don't care if you are an aboriginal or a non-aboriginal. Of course, now I can't say white, because a large part of our fleet is now made up of Asians and other people.

I'm really, really disturbed by the thought of a further division and another level of bureaucracy. I consider the bureaucracy to be my enemy. I consider the federal Department of Fisheries my enemy. David Anderson is my enemy. The aboriginal people in this community are my friends. I deal with them on a professional basis through my shipyard, I fish with them, and I feel very close to them. I'm very nervous speaking here, because I am very worried that this process is going to bring a further division in the harvesting of salmon in the salmon industry.

We've seen it already now. As trollers we're on the very bottom rung of the allocation framework. We don't have a lobby; we are powerless. We are the very last ones when it comes to allocation. Just recently they shut down the fishery for us — just last week. We were forced to fish only in September this year. The weather had gone bad. Basically the stocks had gone by. I just spent three weeks on the west coast of the Charlottes in a very, very scratchy fishery. We were promised a restart of this fishery. We said that we needed it right away because there were only 20 boats left fishing. We encouraged them to immediately reopen the fishery after the first of September. We were promised an October fishery. Well, the consultation process took a week for them to decide whether or not we could go back fishing. We've had a week of good weather. The tides were right for us. The bureaucracy could not work in our favour under the guidelines we work under.

This is my concern when it comes to land claims. We are going to see, again, levels of bureaucracy that will not be able to respond in a timely manner to the necessities of our fisheries. Fish are swimming by. We can't stop and debate who gets the next crack at it. We don't have time. In season we need to fish. We need to go fishing. The fish are swimming by. We need to go do that as members of this community. I need to be able to do that. I can't wait.

I hope I'm making myself clear. The main point is that it's another level of bureaucracy. We cannot wait for the Nisga'a people to make their decisions; we can't wait for the Tsimshian people to make their decisions. If each band is consulted in this process, then basically we are out of the water. Yet I fish with the native people as a commercial fisherman. Like I said, I feel closer to the native people than I do to the rest of the people in this province. I hate to say it; it's a very cliché thing. I've grown up with the native people. I consider them very close friends of mine.

It's the politics of the situation that I am deathly afraid of. We do not need separate fisheries. It won't work in terms of the troll fishery. They won't work. The troll fishery will be the loser. We will lose out. There were many native troll fishermen. Unfortunately, there aren't anymore. Traditionally they've been more gill-net fishermen, but on the Queen Charlotte Islands, in Masset and Queen Charlotte City, there were a lot of Haida trollers. They're all gone now. I believe there is one troll licence left in Masset, and that belongs to a non-aboriginal. I don't believe there are any in Queen Charlotte City that belong to aboriginals.

We're going to be buried by bureaucracy, and another level of government is not what we need. We need to work on fish. There should be fish for everybody. We have gone through fleet reduction. Our fleet has been reduced by over 50 percent in the last four years. We are now down to 140 troll licences from Cape Caution, at the top end of Vancouver, to the Alaska border. There are 140 troll licences left there now.

We were promised that if we jumped through all the hoops, we would be left with a fishery, and this is not true. We have been cut out. We have been denied access to the fishery. If we stack another level of bureaucracy on top of this, then we are essentially out of the picture. I wish you could go to Queen Charlotte City and Masset. I've discussed this with my native friends and with the northern people.

I really don't like getting into this idea of aboriginal and non-aboriginal fisheries. There is one fishery. I'm starting to feel, in a way — I know this may be an inappropriate thing to say — that I can appreciate what has happened to the aboriginal people on the north coast. I can appreciate it. You just have to live here and spend time on the Charlottes and up and down the coast to appreciate what an incredible life those people have. Someone else came along and said they wanted it more, and they got it.

I enjoyed 20 years of the most incredible way to make a living as a troller on the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands. I raised my family. My family fishes with me on the boat. It was an incredible way to make a living, and now someone else wants that more than I do, so I have been displaced. I think it's time to stop that process. The culture of this coast and these communities is built on fish — fish for everyone. There's enough fish there for all of us. The fish stocks are very strong. It's politics that is keeping us from fishing; it's not stock weakness. The fishery is being managed out of Ottawa. It's being managed by political influence.

My point is that very definitely aboriginal people need fish. It is very definitely part of their culture. They are entitled to fish. It's their traditional food. They have been forced out of it economically by the federal gov-

ernment, by policy, by Bob Wright. Someone else wanted those fish worse than they did and had more clout. So the way I see it, they have been forced out. They have a very strong right to support themselves by fishing, but I think it is a big mistake to have an exclusive aboriginal fishery and an exclusive non-aboriginal fishery. The commercial fishery has become the culture of this coast. A strong commercial fishery is incredibly important to the communities on the north coast. To split that up yet again I think is a very big mistake.

D. Prosser: No, I'm sorry. I had a very busy day. I couldn't come in earlier.

D. MacKay: The reason I ask is that you talked about another level of bureaucracy being added into the system, and that's not the intent of this committee. We're all elected officials.

D. Prosser: I understand that. It's my impression that the land-claim process will set up individual bureaucracies, band for band for band. If we're going to follow the model of the Nisga'a treaty, then we will have the Nisga'as and we will have the Tsimshians up and down the coast, and I can't see how this can work for the rest of us on the coast. This is my point.

D. MacKay: If I could suggest, that process is already in place. I think there are 44 different tables in different stages of negotiation at the present time, and they're all looking for different things.

When the Terms of Union came into being, none of us were present. We have been left with the legacy of inaction and perhaps some bad legislation years ago. Somehow we've got to find a way to get around that and bring some end to this.

The principles that are going to guide future treaties are a mandate that we've been asked to go to and ask for some input on, so we can get some ideas, so we can go back and tell our treaty negotiators what it is the people of the province would like to see the treaty negotiators negotiate on their behalf with any future treaties that are going to come down the road. The fact that the Nisga'a got….

We have an aboriginal fishing strategy. Is that what you want? Do you want an aboriginal fishing strategy based on your race?

D. Prosser: No. This is the point I'm making: I don't. But I want it assured that the aboriginal people can make a living off the fishery as well as I can.

D. MacKay: I don't think there's any argument there. We all want to have equal opportunity.

D. Prosser: Are you aware of what's happened with the recreational sector on the north coast here? There's a series of luxury lodges up and down the coast. They're bringing virtually no economic benefit to these communities. This applies to myself as well as the aboriginal communities. This is the point I'm trying to make.

D. MacKay: Part of the problem is that we're having such an economic downturn in the province. It's not just with the fishing. It's in logging and mining because of the uncertainty dealing with the native land claims issue. Our mandate is to find some common ground so we can tell our negotiators: "These are the principles the people of British Columbia want you to negotiate. These are your guidelines."

We've never done that in the past. We've finally come around to acknowledge the fact that we have to do that. We have to involve everybody in this process. That's why we're here. We're asking for suggestions as to what those principles should be so the negotiators can act on our behalf with the natives when we get into these discussions. If we hear that the aboriginal fishing strategy is not a good idea and that everybody should be equal, that's the sort of thing we're looking for. In other words, don't put fish on the table for a treaty.

D. Prosser: No. Well, yes and no. I very much agree with the concept of food fish. Just last week I delivered fish into Skidegate village, about four or five days ago. I've got some friends of mine, a woman who was extremely good to me when I first came to the north coast 25 years ago. She sort of adopted me as a son. I phoned her and was talking to her. I said: "Have you got any fish down there?" She said that no, actually, she doesn't. So I went down with my fish. I have a freezer boat. I dug out a bunch of coho, and I took her a bunch of fish. I delivered fish to Skidegate village just last week. I firmly believe that the native people should have access to the fish outside their front door.

D. Prosser: No, but it's unclear as to how this is being administered. I mean, there's obviously huge problems. I point the finger directly at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In my mind, your job, provincially, is to wrest control away from Ottawa. In my opinion, Ottawa is doing an incredibly poor job.

D. MacKay: That is a commitment we made to the people during the election: we would do what we could to bring the control of the fisheries to province and take it away from….

D. Prosser: It's mired in politics and process. It's mired in process. When you look at Alaska, it manages their fisheries extremely well. If you talk to an Alaskan, if the fishery was managed out of Washington, can you imagine what it would look like in Alaska? It wouldn't work, and it's not working for us.

V. Anderson: Just to clarify that, if I understand rightly, you're asking that there be a fishery protected for the people of the north coast and that there be one fishery for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

V. Anderson: You're also suggesting that there may be some food fishery alongside that as well as commercial fishery.

V. Anderson: I wanted to clarify that. So there's one commercial fishery for everybody, but the food fishery for the aboriginals would also be there alongside that.

D. Prosser: Yes. Look at Port Simpson. There was an incredible abundance of the springs and coho there this year. Chatham Sound was alive with fish. The recreational sector was just going absolutely crazy. Yet the local people….

V. Anderson: You're saying there's enough fish, but both the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal been overtaken by the recreational fishery.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. No further questions? Thank you very much for coming in.

C. Stephens: Thank you for this opportunity. I'm glad that you are here. I'm going to wear my other cap now. [The presenter spoke Nisga'a]

Where I come from, protocol calls me to do that, and I'm proud of it. I'm from the Nisga'a nation. I'm a heritage chief. I come from the house of Wiisinxblkw. Today, first of all, I think I want to ask the panel a question. I don't need three pointers or anything. I'll just go around the table.

D. MacKay: You and I have the same equal rights under the constitution, before the criminal courts.

J. Les (Chair): Just so I understand this clearly, Cyril. We are here to hear from you.

C. Stephens: I know, but I just want to know that we're on the same level playing field with equality.

C. Stephens: First of all, I don't see any first nations on there, so I don't see equality on the panel. Equality only comes when a first nation sits across the table to discuss the solution — whether it's hard, or battle it out, sit 'em up, fight 'em or whatever. At the end of the day equality is when two people sit across the table and agree on the progress from point A to point B to make certain that both sides agree. That, in itself, is what is needed.

I've noticed since I've sat where I am now that whenever there is a committee that is to be moved on issues, you always have non-aboriginals going for the same solution, and you have aboriginals for the same solution. The point that is missing here is that you always have it that way. How does the right hand and the left hand know what is happening when you are doing that? That is not a solution. The solution is when first nations are at the table, and that is the only way.

You are coming to different communities to ask for a referendum, a referendum where you want equality. Now, by my calculations, all the first nations are in a minority, and you're going to go out to ask all the communities of British Columbia to vote on this referendum. That is unjust to a minority that has all this entrenched in their way of living.

I don't think any one of you — I'm saying all of this in sincerity — really know exactly what you are dealing with.

I just want to step back a bit. Our forefathers were put on the reserve, but we never had that. Our place was when the oolichans came, and we moved there. When the hunting season came, we moved there. That was our way of life. That is entrenched in our life, and it will be forever. For the life of me, for all of you to be sitting on the outside looking in on first nations' issues, land resolutions which are very sensitive — and it's different to all the different communities — it can't be one-shoe-fits-all. You're going to ask that, and it can't be so.

You have to walk the walk and talk the talk. You are not going to find the walk-the-walk here, because I don't see any big chiefs, who are the very backbone of this. I'm telling you this because I think you need to know that.

For example, equality. I'll just take an example. How about my pulp mill where I work? There's 1,400

men out there, and I could count on my fingers maybe 14 first nations. Equality? I'm not sure. When you do this referendum and you want equality, do you think you're going to turn it on like that? At the end of the day, do you think there's going to be equality? You and I know that is not so.

Before your Premier got in, I met him at a UBCM. I met him, I talked to him, and I spoke to him. I asked him what he would say, because he and I already had a point or two that we didn't see eye-to-eye on. I spoke to him about it. He said he was going to address it, and he didn't. Now, the thing is this: how in the heck can a man living in a big city, even before he got in, without even doing the research, say to the minority people…? We have a culture; we have a tradition. We live by the land. That is in existence today. Here comes a man who was applying for the number one job, and he threw that out already. I mentioned that to him at the UBCM last year.

Now, to be sitting on the outside and to change and to put it to a vote as to how the first nations are going to live…. If I were to put the shoe on the other side, flip the coin over, suppose there were more first nations than non-aboriginals and we had to make a decision for you? I'm sure you would feel in your heart that they can't do that. I'm saying that just because I want you to feel that, because it's there. That's what it's all about.

One of the things that I admire about the UBCM is this: they are going about it the right way. They are having a solution where they're going to sit with different communities and break down the barriers with the first nations around their communities. I admire that very much, because I think that is the solution. That is the solution, because they are sitting at a table, and they have rock-'em-sock-'em-fight-'ems, but at the end of the day, they've progressed from point A to point B. That is where you bring down the barriers, and that is where you build trust.

Now, how in the heck can a referendum with 77 MLAs sitting in Victoria…? I'm not sure whether you're just going to go through the motions and do that and, at the end of the day, the Premier will say: "Let's just do it anyway." You have to find in your hearts that by doing this job, that by sitting — there you are — ou are doing it. Mayor Don Scott and I are pretty good friends, and he's one of the guys that supports first nations. He's very outgoing with the Lax Kw'alaams. He's very outgoing with the Metlakatla. There in itself is the seed that is good for the people, and the people can see that. That's the difference.

You can't just come here and sweet-talk somebody and do things. It's not that easy. You can't do that. The reason I'm saying that is this. I appreciate what you're doing, but at the end of the day, are we still going to be for equality? That's the question. Some of the things I hear are that it's not for the government to say: "Well, maybe it's a cash deal." It's not for the government to say that. It's for the people who own the land in the resolution, in the land claims. That is their decision. In doing that, they are looking after the lands that they live on so that they can be the entrepreneurs. It does not mean they're going to shun the non-aboriginals so that they can't come in. No. We're open for business. That's what it's all about. I believe you have to take that direction.

One of the things I'd like to clear up with you is this. Don't let mismanagement cloud the issues of first nations, issues like fisheries and logging. I'll tell you why. I agree with the last gentleman who spoke. I feel my heart go out to this gentleman. I just want to touch up on what he said. There was enough salmon in the valley, in the area here, out across the Queen Charlottes, and management couldn't even get their act together. These poor trollers could have made their salmon.

When that happens, people get on edge. Then the first thing they say is: "Oh, yeah. First nations are just going to do this." That's not what it's about. The first nations worked together with DFO. They do have fisheries, but when there's a fishery for them, that's set aside. It's not a combined thing.

You see, issues like that cloud it, and it makes for a sensitive issue. In that, I believe that the government down south…. Look in your hearts and say: "What about the north coast?" There is an issue there. The college, no matter how, is an investment, and here, it's a kick in the back.

C. Stephens: I'd just like to say to you that no matter how, when you put it to a referendum, you're unjustly doing that to the first nations. That's not the equation to go with. I'm sure that if you think you're going to speed that up, I think you'd better look down in your hearts.

It's not going to be so, because we've been here for a long time. If the chiefs see that the referendum isn't the answer, you're going to be sitting there and meeting all the communities till you're blue in the face. I'd like you to think about that.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my views, because I think you needed to see that from my point of view — where I come from and where I've lived. I thank you.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Cyril, for your presentation. I can tell you speak from your heart, and I certainly have taken what you've said. I have a question when I look at this situation we're in with the issue of treaty negotiations. From my perspective what we've done hasn't worked. I'm not sure it has effectively worked for either side.

I'm looking at the process we're involved in here today and this evening, which is one to try and talk to British Columbians — all British Columbians — and say: "What we've done hasn't been effective and hasn't worked. We're now asking you to give us some direc-

tion. We're going to try and put some principles together, not based on not negotiating treaties but on enhancing it and doing it right and getting this job done — just what you want, just what I want and I think what all British Columbians want." I see it as a process of trying something new, because what we're doing in the treaty process truly hasn't worked for the past eight years. I put that out.

I know there's much concern out there by British Columbians. It's a concern that's felt in our hearts as to what we can do to move this process forward and get on so we can all enjoy a quality of life that I know is going to build forever and ever. If we think we'll ever reach the utopia where we're all in a perfect environment, I don't think we'll get there. We have to work together.

You're concerned about the process. I don't know of a better process than going out and talking to British Columbians, and I talk to aboriginals and non-aboriginals, to listen to them tell us: "Here are our principles. Now, please take this to the table and negotiate these treaties on our behalf." That's the way I see the process from this side of the table where I'm sitting today.

C. Stephens: I think it would be wise to use the money you're spending for the referendum to educate the people instead of doing a referendum where you're going to vote on the very existence of the first nations who have lived here. That is wrong. I think educating the people with the referendum money would be the better idea, and it would be a feather in your cap.

B. Lekstrom: Just a quick follow-up to that. I think we're probably both headed to the same end point, and I said this earlier. I think there are differences about what this process means. I don't believe that what we've done in the previous eight years — and if it isn't a fair statement let me know — has worked. Would you agree with that? Do you think it's been an effective process?

C. Stephens: The process was long. The thing was this: it was long and tedious, but from the first nations and from the Nisga'a nation's point of view, all the i's and the t's were dotted. Then we sat together and said: "Okay. This is fine." In thinking about the other nations that are here, I'm a little bit leery about the i's and the t's not being dotted and being passed. I'm sure the nations in the surrounding area wouldn't go for that.

B. Lekstrom: In closing, I guess trust is something — and I don't say this without heartfelt meaning — that we have to work together to gain from each other, and that's a commitment I bring to this table and this committee.

C. Stephens: When you go back, talk about trust, and tell everybody to work on that.

B. Belsey: Cyril, you mentioned at the beginning what equality is, and you made reference to people sitting across a table and being able to communicate. That is something that I had a lot of conversations about during the campaign because of the number of first nations communities that I had visited and where I had spoken to people. I think it's very important. Won't the day be great when we can sit across the table and you don't look at me as a white man and I don't look at you as a first nations or native? That should be the ultimate goal that we could work towards.

In order to get to that point, we have to have a process where we can go through the communities and talk to people — talk to first nations, aboriginal, non-aboriginal — and hear what they have to say and gather that information so we can move down a path in which we can come to that ultimate goal. I believe that is land claim settlements or treaty settlements.

C. Stephens: I'd like to make a quick reflection. Children are the reflection of their parents. When you have good role models, it shows in the kids. Personally, my kids don't know colour; they just have friends. That's why I enjoy living in Prince Rupert. I think it's going to take a while for this province to do that, but I think we could learn a lot from our kids, because they're the ones that don't see that.

B. Belsey: I think you and I must have very similar parents, because I was brought up to think that we're all equal and should all have the same opportunities. I did put that into my boys. They learned that. I think, at the end of the day, that we have to have this kind of communication. We have to go out and talk to people. I don't believe this money is being wasted. We hope to come up with a recommendation that we can move forward with a referendum that will help those that are negotiating land claims to give them a clear mandate. That is certainly my goal and that of our committee, I think.

C. Stephens: Do you think a referendum…? At the end of the day, would the first nations be equal in saying how and where they live and how they manage their lands?

C. Stephens: At the end of the day, when the chips finally fall with the referendum, whether it flies or not…. If the referendum should kick in, do you think that's equality to the first nations? British Columbia is going to make a decision on the lives of a minority group. Do you think that is equality?

B. Belsey: I believe allowing everybody an opportunity to vote on a referendum is equality, yes.

B. Belsey: For all those that have the opportunity to vote. I think that's equality. If we said that only a cer-

R. Visser: I think it's important to remember that we're not debating the existence of rights of title. We're debating how we get to filling in that "empty box" — I think that's how it was referred to. How do we put the things in the box, and what do rights of title mean? What we're trying to do is find the solution.

I had a question. Can there be more than one solution to getting an answer to the land question for the nations in B.C. outside of the Nisga'a?

C. Stephens: One of the things that I think is very important is that you have to put the debating first. You need that for the existence of you and me. You can't just throw everything in a box and do it. We have to hash it out and debate. You will be on the right track if you debate it, if you sit and make the equation perfect by you and first nations fighting it out and settling it. That's debating. At the end of the day people can walk together and do that. That is important.

R. Visser: You don't feel that maybe one of the things we're doing here is having that debate?

C. Stephens: No, I think you're listening to a point of view. I think you're just taking information. I'm not sure whether you're going to just pick the good or the bad out of it. I can't see that as a real solution.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, I'm going to draw this one to a close, because I believe we have three or four more speakers, and we do need to get to Smithers yet tonight as well.

D. Silversides: Thank you for allowing me to make an oral submission to your committee on such short notice. My submission represents my personal views and not those of my firm, my clients or any other organization.

I first want to tell you a little bit about my background, which may help you understand how I form my view of the issues that we're here to consider today. I'm a lawyer, and I've been practising law in Prince Rupert for more than 30 years. At the present time the type of law I practise consists almost exclusively of corporate and commercial law, principally in Prince Rupert but also in the surrounding areas of the Queen Charlottes, the coastal first nations villages and the Terrace-Kitimat area. I'm the solicitor for the municipal government and the corporate solicitor and general counsel for a local financial institution which has branches in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Masset and Queen Charlotte City. I'm the chief legal officer for the Prince Rupert Port Corporation. I also act for more than 500 small companies which have their registered offices located at my firm's address. I generally represent lenders, landlords, commercial tenants, commercial fishermen and other commercial fishing businesses and businesses generally. I practice what some people refer to as business law. My law firm's clientele is generally reflective of the demographics of the community, and I estimate that the percentage of our first nations clients approximates their composition in the general population.

Earlier in my legal career I acted as the prosecutor of criminal offences for the city of Prince Rupert, as the city solicitor, and also for outlying areas, as the agent of the Attorney General for British Columbia prior to the establishment of the Crown counsel system in 1974. For several years after that I defended persons charged with various crimes throughout the region. As such, I've witnessed firsthand the disproportionate number of people in this region of the province who suffer severe economic and social disadvantages, particularly those of our fellow citizens who are aboriginal.

I was born in Prince Rupert and represent the third generation of my family to live in this community. My grandparents helped to build Prince Rupert before it was incorporated in 1910. My mother's family settled in the Hazeltons around the turn of the century. I am proud to say that several members of my extended family include persons of first nations heritage.

I am very pleased your committee chose to begin its hearings in Prince Rupert. The issue of first nations claims is very important to the residents of this city and the surrounding areas, both for those who are not of first nations heritage and for the approximately 30 to 40 percent of the population who are.

Based on my personal and professional experience, I think it is absolutely essential that the governments of British Columbia and Canada achieve a fair and final settlement of land claims without further delay. Every year that passes without a settlement makes our economic problems even more serious, and I think you probably appreciate how difficult times are in Prince Rupert and surrounding areas right now. I'm convinced that several businesses interested in investing or expanding their investment in our area have delayed or decided not to do so because of the uncertainty caused by unsettled aboriginal claims.

I know that many first nations communities in our area have borrowed heavily and invested time, effort and their future in attempting to reach a settlement of their claims in what appears to almost everyone concerned to be a never-ending process. I believe they would welcome the opportunity for a quick resolution of the outstanding issues so they, also, could concentrate their resources on improving the social and economic well-being of their communities.

I was at first very skeptical about the benefit of holding a referendum on the issue of settling aboriginal

claims and the treaty process, but I have now come to believe that this referendum has the possibility of benefiting all concerned. I know and I appreciate the fear and concern that many in the community, particularly the aboriginal members, have about the possibility of a referendum and what that might mean for their communities. I rely for my livelihood on their patronage of my law firm and my partners and associates. I was very reluctant to come here today and say anything positive about this process, because I think it is inevitable that some people will consider that to be an attack on them personally. After agonizing over it, after having written out something earlier today, I came back at 7:30, because I thought it was important for my community to know where I stand on this issue and where I see some possibilities of advancing.

As a lawyer I have significant experience with negotiating, and I know how important it is to have instructions and a mandate from your client or from those whom you are representing. In difficult negotiations I have often found it very helpful for the other party to understand what my client's bottom line is. I think, if properly worded, the referendum could lead to a much more speedy resolution of aboriginal claims by giving the government of British Columbia a clear mandate understood by all sides.

I also think that if the referendum process is handled properly and with respect, it may give the negotiation and settlement of claims a legitimacy and acceptance by the general public that might not otherwise exist. In other words, I think the referendum process, if properly handled, may allow a substantial majority of British Columbians to buy into the process.

In order to be successful, I think it is important that the referendum consist of questions which are clear, concise and the answers to which are unambiguous. Although it may be politically expedient to do so, I do not think it would be helpful for the referendum to consist of one or more non-specific statements — or even worse, platitudes — which voters are asked to agree or disagree with. Anything like the questions asked in the two sovereignty referendums in Quebec would be extremely unhelpful, in my view.

Instead, I think the referendum should consist of a series of questions about fundamental issues which voters can answer with either a yes or a no — or if you prefer, agree or disagree. These questions should be designed to allow the government of British Columbia considerable flexibility in their negotiations while at the same time providing a bottom line for the outcome of the negotiations.

In order to achieve a mandate — or as we lawyers say, "instructions" — from the citizens of our province which will still allow the give and take of good faith bargaining and negotiating, the questions should be very limited in number and should only deal with issues the government, on the advice of this committee, considers to be critical to the electorate. The following are types of questions that might be useful to ask. I don't suggest you would ask all or perhaps any of these, but I give you these as examples so you understand how I think the process would be beneficial to all concerned.

I have six possible questions that are the types of questions you might ask in a referendum:

1. Must any settlement treaty result in a full and final settlement of all claims by the first nation it was made with?

2. Should the government of British Columbia enter into interim settlement agreements without concluding a final settlement or treaty with a first nation?

3. Do you agree the government of British Columbia should have a mandate to create a third order of government?

4. Must every new treaty or settlement agreement result in the members of the first nation with whom it is made being required to pay provincial taxes on the same basis as the general public within a reasonable period of time?

5. Should the government of British Columbia have the mandate to enter into a treaty or settlement agreement which gives a first nation full or partial control of natural resources which are not located within the boundaries of their reserve or other property which is transferred to them as part of the treaty or settlement agreement?

6. Should the government of British Columbia have the mandate to enter into a treaty or settlement agreement with any first nation which gives the members of that first nation, in perpetuity, special rights and privileges not enjoyed by non–first nations persons in British Columbia if the members of that first nation are not already guaranteed such special rights and privileges by the constitution of Canada?

Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my views to you. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have any.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate your comments about whether or not you should be here. I think lots of people in all walks of life face that.

I know that businesses in my community were always reluctant to put up signs of support for me, because somebody would come in — and Port Alberni is like Prince Rupert — and there were always comments about whether they'd do business with you if you supported someone. It's difficult. I think people tend to step forward and need to be thanked for that.

In looking at your questions, one of the things you pointed out, and you got it right when you said number six, is that we are going to be dealing with people whose English is not always their first language choice. We're going to have to make sure that any of the questions are understandable by those who will be voting.

You just brought forward a point I think we have to remember when we're dealing with it. Some of the questions you posed are very good ones. We've got to make it very clear so people can understand the questions. It's just a comment. You really brought it home to me just now that we have to make sure it is very clear so people do understand what the questions are.

D. Silversides: I want to say that I only did this today, and the questions are not very elegant at all and are probably not even the right questions. I apologize for not having thought about it sooner so I could make them a little bit shorter and more clear.

P. Nettleton: Thanks for your presentation, and thanks for having the courage to provide us with some very thoughtful comments.

On behalf of this committee I attended an aboriginal conference last week in Vancouver. I met Bill Wilson for the first time and an old friend, Ed John. I had a chance to chat with him and others. Stephen Owen, who is a federal Liberal MP, made a comment.

The federal Liberal government, as I understand it, is opposed to the referendum, but he did say that however ill-conceived the whole notion of a referendum, if it serves to engage and inform British Columbians, that's not a bad thing. I thought those comments were very helpful as well.

M. Hunter: I'm not sure I have too many questions, because your presentation was clear and unambiguous, and I understand its origins. We are all, wherever we come from in the province, concerned about economic opportunities and the opportunity costs we are paying by the situation we're in.

I too just want to say thank you for your courage in coming here. I also appreciate that it's not always easy to make public statements that might affect your business. Your presentation is so clear that I just hope we never meet on the witness stand when you're cross-examining.

V. Anderson: I appreciate it, and I appreciated you putting out some clarity in those kinds of questions. Following up, maybe, on what I thought was a comment from Gillian, we are very much a multicultural society. Just to illustrate that, for instance, 80 percent of the children in a good many of our schools in Vancouver have English as a second language, and the white English-speaking person is the oddity or the minority in many of our classrooms.

In thinking about this — we talk about cultural background, which is how we all respond to important things in our lives — how can we frame questions that are culturally understandable to all of our multiple cultures, including the aboriginal, and how their value system and approach differs from others? I think that's a reality, if we're doing a question on any topic these days, that we need to do. Have you any comments on that?

D. Silversides: Well, it's a very difficult thing to do. I think you'd need advice from people who are part of those cultural groups. I have found that it's always best, when you can do so, to try to keep things as short, simple and clear as you can, using language that most of us were comfortable with by the time we were in grade 6. It takes real effort to boil statements or questions down to that level, but if you work at it, you can frequently succeed. Lawyers are not very good at doing that.

B. Belsey: I want to thank you, Don, for participating. I know how you agonized over coming out here this evening and how I twisted your arm as hard as I could to get you to make a presentation.

Just reflecting on that, it's unfortunate that any of us should have to worry about coming out here and speaking publicly about our opinions and our beliefs. It should be recognized amongst those that are here and those that will read Hansard that maybe we don't have the freedoms we think we have or think we should enjoy. Again, thank you very much for your participation. I would like to note that you have provided us with a written copy of your presentation.

The next presenter is Bill Kristmanson. Is he away? Gone? Left? Okay, we will carry on, then, with Roberta Van Doorn.

R. Van Doorn: …for several reasons. This treaty referendum isn't complete. It is not needed, but it's not complete. Even if you have it, it won't do anybody any good at all.

First I'll tell you a little bit about myself, and I hope to God I don't cry. I was in residential school. I was in Miller Bay. I grew up. Because I was in Miller Bay when I was young and in residential school later on, I went to a very dysfunctional situation. Then I had 12 brothers and sisters.

When I left home when I was 18, after being abused a lot, I became an orphan. Whose fault was that? Government. I went through so much stress as a child from being molested, being afraid, that now I have real bad health and disabilities. Just the fact that I'm here and I feel like an orphan when I know I've got brothers and sisters out there who were told not to have anything to do with me, hurts. It will hurt until I die.

Government doesn't know what they put us through. Did you know that young girls, adolescents, in Miller Bay were raped by doctors and orderlies, and the nurses heard their cries but did nothing about it? They kept the dormitory doors locked.

Can you imagine what kind of health they have now? Fear, every day, of when it's going to happen again, when those damn jerks want to do that on their own time. Do you want your children to go through one rape and everybody make a concern about it? Everybody says we've got to get over it. Everything happened over 200 years ago. No way. It happened in our generation, and it's still happening today. Talk about justice, equality. There's none, not for natives. I had a friend in Mission. Her husband worked as a guard there. Natives were put in jail and are still put in jail for trivial things, whereas the Caucasians get away with a lot more. There is no equality and justice for the native people, and there never will be.

In talking about equality, I lived here the majority of my life, for over 35 years, before I moved away for awhile. I didn't even have equality, and I still don't, with my own band. I don't get fish. That's what government did to us, us women, off-reserve natives. We have no voice, and we're afraid to speak out anywhere because of what the band will do to us. Me, I don't care. I'm older now. They can't hurt me any more than my own family hurt me, so that's why I speak out here. I spoke out at a Tsimshian tribal council, and I spoke out at the mayor at — what was it called again? — a summit meeting. I was very blunt, and I will be blunt again, because I don't care. You can't hurt me any more than you have already. In a way when you don't speak up about anything, you condone it. You're just as guilty as a perpetrator.

Off-reserve natives, first nations, have absolutely no rights. We are on the very bottom. When I hear bands or chiefs saying this is what their people are saying, they're not speaking on my behalf, because I've never been consulted. I'm not allowed to be involved there. A lot of us are afraid of the land settlement, because we know we're not going to get anything. We got nothing in the past, and we're going to get nothing now. I know this will get back to the bands. I don't care, because I'm speaking for a lot of natives who are afraid to speak out at anything. We only count to the bands when they're getting money. Other than that we don't count.

We pay taxes just like the rest of you. Baby-boomers were the first ones to pay into CPP. I'm on disability, and I couldn't believe how little I got from working so many years. As a child, a young person, I didn't realize I had brains, because I was always brought down. My mother made me quit school when I was 15, but I managed to become a county clerk. When I was down south I got my hairdressing course. I've always been a go-getter. Because of my disabilities, I can't be the way I used to be.

Those disabilities result from a very stressful life. I had no choice as a young person; I have no choice now. My disability prevents me from going to my grandchildren's games, whether it be basketball or soccer. I can't go in the sun. I'm robbed. I've always been robbed all my life, and I continue being robbed because of the government. I just don't understand why this referendum has to be. Nobody made an issue of the billions of dollars for French when they had everything bilingual. Now they want separation after they got everything bilingual. Where are you? Where's the referendum for them?

As for our fishing crabs, they're being depleted and all our other foods. As soon as the nation knows how good they are, they get depleted. I remember my mother and people her age. They would say the sockeye were so plentiful that you could see the backs of the sockeye going up the Skeena, at the Tyee. Now it's not there at all.

I think many of you know Iona Campagnolo, and she said that first nations should be respected. We should be. Do you see first nations screaming and yelling like everybody else to get attention, having riots? Look at the problems they have down in the States over the black people. Do you see us doing that?

I watched Oprah Winfrey one time with a first nations group there. She couldn't get over how calm they were. It's not in our nature to be the way other people are, but that's our downfall.

I won't guarantee that for our young people, because government has had their hand on us, been in control over us, all my life. All I know is this control — from the government, from my local band. They get the money.

When I was growing up, I got all the racist abuse. It was worse then, when I was younger. It was awful.

I like what Matthew Coon Come said about how the chiefs should be accountable for what they do. I watched a program where the majority of natives said they should be. That's what I think myself.

Courses about first nations should be taught in school. Why is the government afraid to give us any recognition that we are the original people here so that we would get our land claims? People know the truth. People that come here from other countries are surprised that there's no course. Nobody teaches them about the first nations.

I'm glad that the federal government is going to consider calling us first nations instead of Indian, because I grew up with too many derogatory words with Indian. I am a first nation. I am proud. I believe in equality for everybody, no matter who you are.

Like I said, I'm blunt, even at the chiefs and tribal council. Because of that, I'm shunned. You need to have off-reserve people have a voice, without being afraid of their bands.

We have been out in the cold too long, and we are sick and tired of the treatment we are getting or not getting. There's a lot of us, and from what I hear, they don't want us, because they know that the majority of us live off the reserve. Given the power and what we

are able to do with that power…. One day I hope we will have that power, because we should. That is equality. The people of the first nations who give the most are off-reserve. They pay their taxes but get nothing.

I was asked — and I told Bill Belsey about this — by a few Caucasians: why don't we settle for a cash settlement? I have that letter going to Bill. I know, from talking to a lot of off-reserve first nations, that we would rather have that than a land treaty.

I know by saying that that I am going to be in deep water with the reserves. I was talking to Debbie Jeffries, and I said: "What can they do to me? All they can do is kill me. Nobody can hurt me any more than my own family. They can shun me; they can deny my children anything — which has been done already."

I believe that the federal government and all the provincial governments need to apologize to the first nations people for what happened over 200 years ago, what happened in residential schools, what happened in our bay. Without their apology first, the new immigrants that come here — and they know nothing about us — lump us all together, stereotype us all together. They will follow the lead. Whatever the provincial or federal governments do with first nations people, that's what the new immigrants are doing. I see that. Other people who are racist figure that if the federal or provincial government are doing it, they can do it too.

We don't have equality. The treaty referendum. It would be nice if you put it down, but if the people were in our situation, would they care to have a referendum done on them too? Would they care to be told where to live? I don't think so, but it would be nice to have it on a referendum.

R. Van Doorn: I'm not really for the referendum, but neither am I really for the land claims, either. I hope you will consider involving off-reserve natives — that this would get to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Chrétien — because without us off-reserve natives, it's not right. It's not equality. We are left out in the cold. It's just not right.

R. Van Doorn: Oh, yeah. I told you I wasn't going to vote for you. [Laughter.]

B. Belsey: I know how difficult this has been for you. I do appreciate, and I'm sure the rest of my colleagues appreciate, the effort you've made to present to us. So I'm not going to ask you any questions, but thank you very much.

V. Anderson: Thank you, Roberta, I really appreciate it. I particularly appreciate that you spoke from your personal experience, which is not easy. It's not theoretical; it's life. You also spoke on behalf of thousands of other people who have been through similar experiences and are not heard or understood. You brought home to us something which has not been a top priority in any of the land claims discussions: that is, the off-reserve persons, of which there is a very high percentage. They are in a sense disassociated from their own people as well as from other people and misunderstood, because they're in that no-person's-land.

Can you offer us a suggestion of how best to reach out to make sure we don't miss this group of people and do hear them? Not many of them are going to have the same kind of courage or determination you had to come here to speak to us. How would we get to hear from them?

R. Van Doorn: Here I go again. I was thinking of starting a program called off-reserve native equality, but I know that's a lot of work. I didn't know if my health would be up to it. To reach out to the off-reserve natives would be best done by another off-reserve native.

V. Anderson: We have in Vancouver the United Native Nations. We're in touch with that group, but there are other people besides that group, of course.

R. Van Doorn: Yeah, but how many people are reaching out to them, though? When they're in an office like that, off-reserve natives are not going to reach out to them.

V. Anderson: Thank you for raising it and making sure it's on our agenda. We won't forget that you were here.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Roberta, for sharing it. You've spoken of your hurts and some of your experiences, some of which have not been good experiences. I'm just wondering: do you think, for a moment, that treaties might be helpful not only to you but to people that you love and know and care about — future generations? Do you not see treaties as providing some hope, some opportunity?

R. Van Doorn: Because there's no unity, which I brought up in the last Tsimshian tribal council — unity with the people, like off-reserves. They tend to stay away even from the Tsimshian tribal council. They live off-reserve all their life, because like I said, they are afraid to speak out about anything, whereas I don't care.

G. Trumper: Roberta, I just want to thank you for coming. I know it's very difficult for you, but you do speak for lots of women who I know have great difficulties and I know would not be able to come forward to a forum such as this. I've known a lot of them for a long time, and I've heard their stories. You really are to be commended for coming forward this evening. I know it's really difficult, and I thank you very much.

M. Hunter: I don't have a question but having said what I said to Don Silversides and the courage that he took…. Roberta, I think your courage comes from a different area, but I'd like to thank you publicly, as well, as I thanked Don. I really appreciate the perspective that you brought. I think all of us will remember what you've had to say. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Sometimes we share that feeling too. Again, thank you, Roberta, for coming tonight.

R. Van Doorn: I really wish you would put down under referendum the option of cash settlement instead of land claims.

J. Les (Chair): We will take that into consideration, along with everything else you've said as well.

B. White: Hi. I don't know whether to say thank you for listening to me or what, because I don't really appreciate being here talking about a referendum when I thought the election took care of that when you were asking about whether or not to have a referendum. Now that you are in power, you want to know how many questions on the referendum. I think the more questions you have on there, the more ambiguous it's going to be. You put down one question, and it might not meet the requirements of the question just before or the one following. You give an answer to that question, and it may taint the answer to the next question. So how many questions are you going to have?

B. White: No, the mandate of the committee, negotiating workable, fair and affordable treaties with first nations…. Affordable to who? There are so many questions that come up when we're dealing with it, because at the same time you're talking about a referendum on first nations issues and what not on land negotiations, treaty negotiations, whatever you want to call it. My question is: who the hell's paying for this? Why are we spending this kind of money on this one when we have a treaty commission already in place, where all these questions that you're asking could be answered? I'm sure that there are a number of representatives on there — the majority, I believe — who are all first nations. They're there representing first nations. Why not ask them some questions?

You know, we keep on bantering back and forth about referendums, land negotiations, land claims, whatever you want to call it. I have a question, though. Why is it that when we're talking about negotiations and while it's taking place, logging is taking place? Tree farm licenses are being handed out in the same territory or the same land that we are supposedly negotiating. Those Crown lands are continuously being handed over to non–first nations people, and yet those territories or those lands are the very essence of the negotiations. The longer we put roadblocks in the way, in the form of referendums…. Do you want a referendum or not? I call it a roadblock, because it's only confusing the issue. The mainstream people now having to come here and deal with this. If they don't deal with this, then….

You people who are sitting up there seem to think that if there's nobody that comes here, then everybody's in favour of what you want. As far as I understand, when first nations are not in favour of things, they don't show up. That's how a lot of first nations show their disapproval of what is going on. They don't want to show that they're there supporting it, because as soon as someone comes forward to some of these things, it's misconstrued that they are in support of what is going on, even if they come up here and say a bunch of things against it.

Getting back to the logging, negotiations and the handing out of tree farm licences or handing out at different areas to different loggers or different companies…. Then first nations put a stop to it and say: "No, you can't log there, because we're talking about negotiating on that land." Lo and behold, that guy who was awarded the tree farm licence or the area to log…. Government says you can't log there. "Okay, but we'll pay you not to log there." That doesn't make sense. Keep on paying these people not to log, not to fish, and yet the first nations get nothing of that. Millions of dollars are being paid out in those territories to people other than first nations.

Another question: what's the difference between a standing committee and a select standing committee? We don't really know what it means. At least I don't know what it means. Select standing committee. That means that they've gone out, and they've just selected a

few people that they wanted to be on there. That's what I see a select standing committee as.

Then there's another thing that I want you people to know. That is the myth that first nations don't pay taxes. We do pay taxes. I think every time somebody comes up to you and says, "How come first nations don't pay taxes?" and you don't answer and say that they are paying taxes, you're part of the problem.

I'm here speaking in English. English is not my choice. It was taught to me. I learned it, but it was not my choice. My elders were told that they could not speak their language. They were forbidden to speak their language, and if they did, they were put in jail or reprimanded in some other way. I wish I could speak my own language to you people, and I wish even more that I could speak the Tsimshian language as I am in their territory.

You keep on hearing bits and pieces about the constitution. The constitution is supposed to be there. It's supposed to be law. Yet we as first nations are continuously trying to make sure that the constitution is being lived up to. We are continuously having to fight just to practise our rights. Those rights are, as was spoken earlier, fishing and hunting. We continuously have to jump through hoops and do all these other things, yet it's supposed to be our constitutional right.

I just had a number of questions that I wanted to ask. I believe I've asked them. I didn't really have anything to say. What brought me here was that I heard a little bit on the radio the other day. There's weren't too many callers that called in to ask questions, as the two people that were there seemed to take up quite a bit of the time. Then, when there was free time, it was left there for advertisement.

What you're asking for here is a mandate. On the other piece of paper here you're talking about negotiations. What the mandate is and what you're putting out on the other papers seem to be a little ambiguous. I wish I'd had more preparation to come here and make a presentation, but it was only by hearing it on the radio that I knew about this. I couldn't come here this afternoon because I have to work and pay taxes.

B. Lekstrom: When you talk about wishing that you could speak your own language, I can tell you, sitting here, that I wish I had the ability to understand it, because it's culture. We all have to learn to respect each other. I think that's what it's about. The issue is one where, from my side, looking at what's going on and at some of what I've heard…. We're really trying to find a focus so we can put our principles in place and so we can fairly negotiate these treaties. That's what it's all about. That's what I believe. I'll speak from my side of the committee: this is about trying to move things forward. I don't think it's worked for eight years, and we're trying to do something better. This isn't something we're trying to make worse. I guess that's the only thing I'm going to leave you with, because it could be discussed and debated for hours. It's a huge issue. The fact is we're sitting here because we think we can make a difference for the betterment of us all. That's the reason we're here, Bill.

G. Trumper: I just had a comment. You said you didn't have much time to put anything down. Certainly, if you want to put in a written statement on some concerns you have, we'd be very pleased to receive it. Get the information from our staff.

B. White: The only thing I had to add to all of this is that I guess I'm opposed to any referendum, whether or not they have the proper questions. I don't believe that there should be a referendum. It was mentioned earlier that the referendum they had in Quebec didn't work either. How many more times are we going to do this kind of thing, whether it be Quebec or British Columbia?

R. LeBlanc: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I believe that this referendum should take place. I've heard people speak of inequalities. I think that if we continue on the path that we've been on, we're going to create a have-not society. That is going to be with the citizens of this country, British Columbia.

I feel that we owe our native peoples. We do owe them. Roberta mentioned cash. It should be finalized, because I know that one takes, the other takes, and that's on everyone's part. The animals are being slaughtered, mismanaged. People are taking moose seven, ten, 11 at a time. Conservation officers are helpless, impotent to do anything about it, because out comes a piece of paper saying it's ceremonial. I know they were there for that moose, but there were ten other moose in the backyard. I know there are Canadians that cheat the system. It's wrong. That's why I'm saying we should have a common front with our aboriginal people. There should be comprehensive management of all our resources, whether it's trees, minerals, what have you.

I think the referendum is a good idea, and what questions should be asked should be clear questions. We need informed negotiators, people that know what we want as Canadians. This is what this referendum will hopefully bring forward. I think it's a wonderful idea. I have voted NDP in the past, but I have voted Liberal the last so-many elections — I forget. I'm proud of our old guard. I think as Canadians we need to resolve this long-outstanding issue. I know that I come from a culture, a Canadian culture. That's my identity. If we owe somebody, we see they're paid. That is the Canadian way. As a Canadian, I don't care what it costs to get out of this. I will pay it. No cost is too great to resolve this.

Roberta mentioned cash settlement, and I think cash is quite appropriate. We owe our people, our abo-

riginal people, and we cannot let them continue on the path that they're on. They're going that way instead of coming together. They've done some wonderful jobs. Right now I go by the grace of two aboriginal men who are my friends in life, have been my friends for 40 years. Right now I'm just going about my business, my understanding, my studies. I've neglected my finances, if I must say, and have left myself in a bit of a spot, but it's my aboriginal friends that are helping me right now. They're people with heart. They're people with compassion. They're just as human as me, you and all of us, but I dislike seeing what is happening to us as Canadians, and that is the division this is creating.

Get the job done. Negotiate. Put the best out there. As I understand it, we've been paying for our aboriginal peoples to have good legal advice, etc., and that's fine. We do want to come to the table and get it right, but I would like to see finalization and equality for all. We all come under the same Canadian flag. We're all a leaf of this country, the great tree of Canada. It's not right to see young people out in their warrior uniforms demanding something that is kind of vague and that's their land, their rights, whatever. We have to form one identity here in this referendum — one identity for all. That's what Canada is about. We live in the greatest country in the world, and I love my country. I would do anything for her.

D. MacKay: Roland, if I could, I'll just roll this up into one simple question. If you had the opportunity to speak to the negotiators that are going to represent the province of British Columbia, from what you've just said, would it be safe to say that you would tell the negotiators that what you want at the end of the day is equality, finality and individual payments to the natives? Would that sum up what you basically just said?

R. LeBlanc: Most certainly — finalization. Pay what we owe and see that Canada's waters and lands are governed by Canada, not the kind of fragmentation that is happening. You can't go anywhere in Canada and feel that you're on Canadian soil now. With this new settlement that's happened, I hear mushroom pickers are being harassed and pushed out from traditional native land.

As a Canadian, I love us all. As I say once again, we're in the greatest country in the world. Let's not get it wrong for our children. Let's get it right.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Roland.

That concludes our meeting for today. We were originally scheduled to go to 8 o'clock. It's now 20 after eight. We do need to pack up and catch a plane and move on over to Smithers. Thank you to the committee and to staff for a long day today, and we'll do this again tomorrow.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS