Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 7 - Friday, October 5, 2001

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

Present: Present: John Les, MLA (Chair); Paul Nettleton, MLA (Deputy Chair); Bill Belsey, MLA; Gillian Trumper, MLA; Val Anderson, MLA; Blair Lekstrom, MLA; Dave Chutter, MLA; Rod Visser, MLA; Dennis MacKay, MLA; Mike Hunter, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 10:02 a.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)   Karen Goodings, Peace River Regional District
    2)   Steve Thorlakson, Mayor, City of Fort St. John
    3)   Larry Papp
    4)   Shirley Viens
    5)   Ray Cunningham, Councillor, District of Chetwynd

4. The Committee recessed from 11:54 a.m. to 2:01 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    6)   Ron Zalinko
    7)   Oliver Mott
    8)   Bob Bacon
    9)   Ernie Freeman
    10) Brian Ruddell

6. The Committee recessed from 3:18 p.m. to 4 p.m.

7. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 4:02 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		179
	K. Goodings	179
	S. Thorlakson	182
	L. Papp	186
	S. Viens	188
	R. Cunningham	191
	R. Zalinko	193
	O. Mott	195
	B. Bacon	199
	E. Freeman	199
	B. Ruddell	201

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:	Bob Bacon Ray Cunningham (Councillor, District of Chetwynd) Ernie Freeman Karen Goodings (Peace River Regional District) Oliver Mott Larry Papp Brian Ruddell Steve Thorlakson (Mayor, City of Fort St. John) Shirley Viens Ron Zalinko

J. Les (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is John Les. I'm the Chair of the committee, which is the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Before the other members introduce themselves, I would like to very briefly outline why we're here.

The standing committee was appointed by the Legislature just over a month ago 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 available at the information table at the back of the room.

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

The committee has been holding hearings in several communities across the province over the last several weeks and will be travelling to other communities throughout British Columbia in the coming four weeks. The hearings will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff. The transcripts will be available on the committee's website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt.

Following the 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, deposited with the Clerk by November 30. The report will be a public document once it has been tabled or deposited.

I'll ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with Val Anderson.

G. Trumper: Good morning. I'm Gillian Trumper, MLA for Alberni-Qualicum. I would just like to say that some people thought the notice was fairly short. We did decide that the north should be first because of the weather. That's why maybe some of you feel you weren't given enough notice. That was the reason, but we're here first.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I'm Paul Nettleton, MLA for Prince George–Omineca. I live in Fort St. James.

D. MacKay: Good morning. My name is Dennis MacKay. I'm the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and I live in Smithers.

R. Visser: Good morning. I'm Rod Visser, MLA for North Island. I live in Campbell River.

B. Belsey: Good morning. My name is Bill Belsey. I'm the MLA for North Coast, and I live in Prince Rupert.

D. Chutter: Good morning. I'm Dave Chutter, MLA for Yale-Lillooet, and I own and operate a cattle ranch just outside of Merritt.

B. Lekstrom: Good morning. I'm Blair Lekstrom, MLA for Peace River South, which encompasses a portion of Peace River North, as strange as that may sound, with the new boundary alignments. I'm certainly happy to be here and very proud that we're here in the north to hear from the people.

With the introductions out of the way, we're ready for our first presentation this morning. First off is Karen Goodings, who is the Chair of the Peace River regional district. Good morning.

K. Goodings: Good morning and, of course, welcome to the B.C. Peace. First of all, I must convey my admiration to all of you, as newly elected MLAs, for your commitment to fulfilling the election promise. You have all been very busy. I have to say I admire your tenacity, endurance and stamina. I also think that appreciation needs to be given to your families and partners, because they're left behind doing all of the work at home. Welcome to the Peace.

On behalf of the Peace River regional district, I would like to welcome you to the B.C. Peace and thank you for the opportunity to present a short brief with respect to the views of local government relative to treaty negotiations. Through UBCM, the desire to have local government at the treaty tables was recognized. For the past four years I have been involved as a representative for the northern treaty TAC table, as it pertains to the Tsay Keh Dene. The Tsay Keh Dene reside in the electoral area that I represent.

Unfortunately, there are many times when conflicting schedules do not permit me to make the meetings. There are several bands involved in the northern treaty TAC, and Mayor Tom Briggs is the Chair for the overall table. I understand that Mayor Briggs will be presenting to you at a later meeting and will bring forward the table position on the issues.

I have been very fortunate to have developed an open dialogue with the provincial negotiators, and I feel they have done an excellent job of the huge task at hand. It sometimes seems to move so very slowly. The old saying "one step forward and two steps back" has taken on new meaning.

Having said that, it is very necessary for the process to move slowly to allow time to develop the relationships and trust that are absolutely crucial. We need to recognize that the issues we deal with on a daily basis are very foreign to many of the aboriginal people. My basic understanding of the process is that the land is the responsibility of the province, while the cash settlement is the responsibility of the federal government.

The federal government has jurisdiction on the issues that are transboundary such as migratory birds, navigable waters, etc., while the provincial ministries will retain control over the resources such as forestry, oil and gas, minerals and wildlife. The province retains responsibility for issues such as allowable annual cut, surface and subsurface rights, and harvest of wildlife — hence the need for negotiations to determine the rights of the aboriginal people as it pertains to those provincial resources.

The courts have said that their rights do take certain precedence, albeit not very clearly, with respect to their ability to provide for their peoples. As the Chair of the Peace River regional district I have discussed from time to time what I see as issues pertaining to local government. Unequivocally, the response has been that we need certainty and finality, but we need it done.

We also believe that there should not be an additional level of government and that everybody, regardless of race, should be treated equally. There is no doubt in my mind that the issues in the north are different from those in the south.

There is concern at the local level as to the ability of all residents of B.C. to have unfettered access to Crown lands and lands beyond for recreational and back-country uses and for providing for their families. The rules need to be the same for all residents. The rules for access management for the use of all-terrain vehicles need to be the same for all residents.

Within the settlement lands there should be more control by the aboriginal people. In the lands referred to as traditional territories, which seem to be all the rest of B.C., there needs to be provision for equal treatment for all peoples. We have recently been told that local government must consult when preparing our official community plans, or OCPs. We do need some clarification on that.

At our level we deal only with private land. Crown land is the responsibility of the province. However, there may be times when an OCP will also include some Crown land off-settlement but within traditional. Is it the responsibility of the local government to try and consult? If so, how does that consultation happen? At our expense?

We certainly do not cover the expenses for Joe Q. Public to attend OCP meetings. It would be considered unfair to expect local governments to absorb an expense for those whom it cannot levy a tax to help recover those costs.

We have been reassured that private lands are not on the table. The Delgamuukw decision is not entirely clear on this issue. While local government would not likely get into any discussion on the issue, the local people often turn to their elected people for direction. This might put an onus on elected leaders to become involved.

In this region we are currently under Treaty 8. This treaty is over 100 years old and, by all standards, does not measure up. Local bands have successfully put up road blockades to try and address their concerns about the lack of consultation with the oil and gas companies. We all know that if non-aboriginal people tried to do that, we would be thrown in jail. This relates to a double standard in the eyes of the majority.

It is a sad and sorry situation that we cannot seem to get beyond. No amount of money will gain the respect that the aboriginal people seem to want. By keeping all the land in the control of the band, there is no way that the individual person can make decisions on what most of us do every day of our lives. Sometimes the decisions we make are wrong, but we must be responsible for those decisions ourselves.

I sincerely hope that a hundred years from now, people will not look back on the treaty negotiation process and the eventual settlement and say how wrong we were. With respect to the referendum that will likely happen in early 2002, I have a concern that many people thought the referendum would be on: "Should we negotiate treaties?" We all know that is not the case and that treaties must be reached. The economy will not flourish without them.

I do thank you for the time you've allowed for presentation, and I certainly would entertain any questions.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Karen. At the end of your presentation you rightly stated that this is not about whether or not treaties should be negotiated. We are committed to doing exactly that. Given that and given that we're going to conduct a referendum on the guiding principles that should frame the treaty negotiations, what are your suggestions in terms of the questions we should ask the public in that referendum?

K. Goodings: I've thought a lot about this, John, and I honestly would have to spend more time thinking about it. I'm sure you will be doing the same. I know that the questions will probably come from your presentations. Certainly, we cannot put something on paper that says: "Should we negotiate?" That just is out of the question. It has to be done. Really, I have spent some time thinking about it, and I honestly don't have the answer for you.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Karen, for your presentation. I just want to pursue John's question, although I heard your answer. You referred to Treaty 8, and you say it's over a hundred years old but, by all standards, does not measure up. Can you relate to us how, in your view, it doesn't measure up? That might give us some clues from the experience in this part of the province and some hints as to where we might start to look for some questions. Are there principles in Treaty 8 that have not served us? Is it the content rather than the principles? Can you shed any light on that for me?

K. Goodings: I would assume that with Treaty 8 being the age it is, what was put in that treaty is not relevant to today.

K. Goodings: The substance of the treaty will likely be up for…. I'm sure they'll be requesting it to be opened. I know that they have already, and at this point I don't believe that has been agreed to. I think what I would be looking for is certainty in the finality. I would like to see these treaties somehow address the issues to the point where we no longer have the feeling that road blockades are a necessity. Somehow we have to get beyond that in order to move it ahead.

Going back to your question, I think the first nations people and, of course, the aboriginal people are the ones who should be answering this question. They're looking for the ability to provide for their families and somehow pull themselves out of what are considered to be very uncomfortable surroundings for them.

I'm not sure we're going in that direction. It's maybe a more personal feeling than the feeling of the regional district. I am concerned that a hundred years from now, they'll look back on it and say: "Why didn't we put that land in the hands of the people, and why didn't we move ahead to make everybody equal?"

G. Trumper: You made the comment in your presentation that the issues are different between the north and the south. That's true, knowing that where I come from the issues are probably very similar to here, but they're certainly not the same as the issues that the aboriginals may have in the urban areas. You said you can't do it right now, but I think it would be really helpful if you were able, maybe a bit later on, to give some thought to how we address that in a referendum. I know from the presentations we've had for the last two days up here that the issue keeps coming to the surface. It's different. We're dealing with land here, whereas I think we're going to be dealing with other issues in the urban areas. If you're able to come forward with something you think might work towards putting a question on the referendum that encompasses this — which, I suppose, is a principle — it would certainly be very helpful. I'm not asking you to answer that now, because it's a very difficult issue.

K. Goodings: I would certainly spend some more time thinking about it, Gillian.

B. Lekstrom: Just a question on the issue of self-government, because that, and what model it may take, is certainly an issue up for discussion. Having some background in local government, my question would be: do you see the possibility of self-government mirroring what local governments now work under in the province, or would you see the ability for first nations to have something different? What would your preference be if you had a choice? If self-government is proceeding, should they be given equal rights as municipalities and regional districts now, for instance, or should it be put under some other form?

K. Goodings: My preference would be for a similar style of government to what local governments work under now. I don't believe that's their preference, and that's where the issues will be.

V. Anderson: Two quick questions. You mentioned wanting certainty and finality. On the other hand you seemed to suggest that Treaty 8, being 100 years old, needs to be reviewed because it was not adequate. Would that same principle hold 50 or 100 years from now for the treaties that we're dealing with? That's one question.

The other is about the aboriginal people who live on reserve as against aboriginals who live off-reserve in our towns and villages, of which you have as many as we do.

K. Goodings: I believe that we could reach certainty and finality, although Treaty 8 might have to be brought up to the standards that the rest of the treaties would mirror. I think it can be certain and final. I think the problem with Treaty 8 right now is that they're seeing things happening around the province that they feel they're not a part of and they want to be a part of.

V. Anderson: I raise that because I know with the Nisga'a and other treaties, there's a feeling that as other treaties are undertaken, each of these will need to be brought up to date with the latest treaty — kind of a bargaining principle.

K. Goodings: Do you not believe, though, that the first treaty signed was basically the template for what the rest of them will follow?

K. Goodings: You think it will be different for each. Well, it's a tremendous task to try and reach that certainty and finality. For sure, those at the table at the regional district at least felt that this was something we needed to strive for.

K. Goodings: On-reserve and off-reserve. And yes, we do have many people. I have neighbours who are certainly of aboriginal descent — in fact, full aboriginal — and are living the same as we live and seem to be very happy with that. It seems to me, when I see the people who live on-reserve, that they still are struggling with where their place in life is. I consider that to be a concern. However, my viewpoints are definitely different from theirs. So it remains to be seen.

B. Belsey: Karen, thank you very much for your presentation and those kind words of support for my colleagues and myself and our families. You've made a comment in here, and I'm just wondering if you would clear it up for me. It says: "It sometimes seems to move so very slowly, and the old saying 'one step forward and two steps back' now has new meaning." I'm just wondering what you mean by that.

K. Goodings: Well, in the tables, when I've been able to make it down to the meetings, you do a review of what was done at the last table. It seems, from time to time, that you think you're moving ahead with the negotiations only to find out that in fact that wasn't what they meant or wasn't what they wanted, and you find yourself reviewing what you reviewed at the previous meeting. It takes a lot of time, and I think the time is very necessary for them to start to feel comfortable.

K. Goodings: I'm speaking of the Tsay Keh Dene negotiation table. At the Tsay Keh negotiation table, of course, we have the federal and the provincial negotiators as well as band representation. I've been fortunate enough to have sat at a couple of tables with Jean Isaac, who has much wisdom from her community. It's very difficult for them, because of course they sit at the table. Then they take that back to their people, and their people say: "No, no. This is what we meant. This is what we want to see." So they bring that back, and we have to rediscuss.

It gets frustrating. I've sat there sometimes at two-day meetings, and I've left the meeting thinking: "We didn't move ahead at all." But you know that in that time you've built some relationships and certainly made people feel more comfortable.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions of Karen? Thank you very much, Karen. I appreciate you coming this morning.

S. Thorlakson: Twice in one week sitting across from Blair Lekstrom — my heart is beating still.

There are lots of very familiar faces and some colleagues. Blair and I served as colleagues on the UBCM executive. Gillian and I served as colleagues on the UBCM executive. I've tried, in some modest way, to follow the pattern that she laid out for us as a very dignified representative of our local governments. John, I know you've been heavily involved both in that and in the FCM as well. Lots of familiar faces and some new ones. It's nice to have you all come to the energetic city and to the Peace country of northeastern British Columbia.

I think it's kind of a homecoming for Gillian, because she landed in Canada in Beaverlodge, Alberta, which is not terribly far away from here, a few years ago.

We, as a council, discussed some of the issues. I don't have a formal written presentation to present. I take some comfort that there's opportunity to file through the website, and we'll probably be taking advantage of that.

We discussed the issue, and think the point needs to be made over and over and over again. It never becomes unnecessarily repetitive to say that any referendum cannot, must not and will not deal with first nations rights. First nations rights are guaranteed in the constitution, guaranteed in law, guaranteed by court settlements. We support that without any reservation whatsoever.

We understand that what you're talking about is principles for negotiating treaties. We think principles, properly thought out and properly discussed and properly crafted, can be timeless — to answer the question that Val brought up a little bit earlier.

This is an interesting area, as Karen indicated. There are seven first nations in northeastern British Columbia. Some of them are more recent adherents to Treaty 8. McLeod Lake is the most recent one. It's a little bit outside of northeastern B.C., but it's an adherent to Treaty 8. Some of the first nations in this area arrived after Treaty 8, which is something that perhaps is not always understood and that changes things just a bit.

They look to our communities and are a part of our communities, in many respects. They are looking to the service centres in the region — whether it be Chetwynd, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John or Fort Nelson —

The difficulty in attempting to build bridges of understanding with first nations here…. Even though we've had a treaty for 102 years, bridges of understanding are very challenging. Rather than trying to communicate government to government or first nation to municipal corporation, it really requires one-on-one and the building of a personal relationship and a personal understanding. It's a time-consuming challenge and task. I'm not surprised that the Nisga'a treaty — good, bad or indifferent — took 20 years.

First nations have been struggling in this area, trying to build their capacity so that they can consult appropriately as it applies to oil and gas development, which is taking off astronomically. They are guaranteed the opportunity to consult as to the impacts of all forms of development on their traditional lands, and their ability to do so has been severely constrained in that it requires a technical understanding of a certain level.

The memorandums of understanding between the Oil and Gas Commission, which is functionally a deputy minister–level position…. Derek Doyle is the new oil and gas commissioner. He lives here in Fort St. John and is based here. He has a real challenge on his hands to continue to build the relationships and the understanding. Trust is something that's easily broken and slowly built — very slowly built.

We have been, as a municipality, working on an ongoing but relatively informal basis of building relationships and understanding with first nations. We have engaged, through the UBCM, community-to-community relationships. At times I fear that that is almost too structured, because once again it is a situation where to build the relationships and understanding, you have to go back and work one on one — talk to the chiefs, talk to the elders, talk to the band councillors, talk to the members. You find that they have the same problems, the same desires, the same aspirations, the same hopes in many respects as everyone who is not aboriginal does.

They have politics that divide them. They have hopes for their families that they want to build in an era of ongoing community-building. You know, the predominance of genealogical websites lets everybody know that everyone's trying to get in touch with their roots, know their backgrounds, and so on, so there is much more that is common ground. Yet the focus at times has been on the disparity and on the differences rather than on the commonality.

As the prime service centre for at least three and possibly as many as five first nations in the area, our obligation is to build on the relationship. The UBCM community forum helped in that regard. We've gone an extra step. As a city we've engaged in a process that we call grass-roots government. Grass-roots government is examining a whole range of models for local government reform. We've taken a couple of study tours to Alberta to have a look at what they're doing in Fort McMurray and what they're doing in Sherwood Park, which are economically and geographically very similar to this area in many respects. There are differences, but there are a lot of similarities.

One of the interesting things there is the relationship with the first nations and how they build on it. There is no shame in learning from other people's successes and failures. Part of our grass-roots government initiative, which includes a committee of citizens — 15 are rural and seven live in the city — is going out and consulting and talking primarily to the rural areas about options for the future. We have a first nations member from the Doig reserve who sits on the committee, and that helps to build the relationships.

We've also recognized that we have not done as much as we could. Sometimes it's difficult to understand even where you should be going and how you should be trying to build those bridges. We've just hired a retiring staff sergeant as our director of protective services, as of November 1, with particular responsibility for building relationships with first nations in the area. He has spent many years here and previously many years in Fort Nelson and has a very good relationship and understanding of the first nations — of the people, of the politics and of the needs and aspirations. So we're looking for him to give us a lot of guidance and a lot of help in building that.

Discussions that I've had with chiefs, elders and citizens indicate that they aspire to exactly the same kinds of things that everybody else wants. They want good jobs for their families. They want educational opportunities. They want to make sure they don't lose touch with their roots. They want to make sure they have as much of an opportunity to participate in all of the good things that this province holds as everybody else. But there is a big capacity issue, a big capacity problem.

The issues are complex. In trying to think of some wording I might possibly recommend to you that you could take back for consideration, I think it's critically important that any referendum question be absolutely simple, clear, brief, concise, and indicate in its preamble…. You know, working with UBCM for so many years, you've got the "whereas's" which are not part of the body of the question but are critical to define the body of the question. One of the absolute things that must be in your "whereas" is "subject to constitution and legal rights of first nations and first nations persons." "Beyond any shadow of a doubt, are you in favour of the provincial government negotiating land claims and treaty settlements based on the following principles?" Bang, bang, bang — very short, very succinct.

Where the difficulty came in was talking about which principles. In discussions around our council table — and as I say, these are extemporaneous remarks…. We haven't adopted a resolution that says this is the question that we would commend to you.

Equality of all persons, equality of opportunity, fairness of opportunity and fairness among all persons. Now, that can lead to questions about how you define those things, and I think that's your job. I don't think

it's necessarily our job to do anything other than give you those broad principles that we think are absolutely crucial.

There are a lot of old issues that surface and muddy the waters. There is a lot of misunderstanding. There's a lot of coffee-shop talk that's based on a lack of knowledge of issues. One of the key ones that happened in this area was that at the end of World War II, returning veterans were looking for land. The Department of Veterans Affairs, at the time, took what was then called Fort St. John reserve No. 1 just north of Fort St. John, which had been peopled by people of both Beaver and Cree descent from time immemorial. They were quite nomadic. They would go to different areas at different times of the year. There would be times when they wouldn't come back to a given area for two or three years, but that was their legal reserve that had been set up and structured. In order to accommodate returning farmers, those people were told that they would be provided with new lands, and those prime farm lands just north of town were reserved by the feds, in effect, for returning DVA.

Well, the feds really screwed up, and who they damaged the most was the first nations. It took over seven years for new lands to come up to be defined. Those new lands were considerably farther away from Fort St. John. Instead of being five miles from town, in one case it's 35; in another it's about 50 miles. Another one is 40 miles, if you look at the Halfway, the Doig and the Blueberry as the three main areas. When the feds turned those lands back over to the DVA, they did not reserve the subsurface rights back to the Crown. As a result we have a number of farmers up north of this area who, when oil and gas were discovered, are receiving royalties. It's the only place it's happening in British Columbia. Subsurface rights have always gone with the reserve, whether it's for minerals, gravel, oil and gas or anything. It took a long, long time for the…. When the two new reserves were established, the subsurface rights were reserved — to the Crown.

There's a lot of lack of understanding even in our own community that people had something taken away from them and that when it was substituted they got something less, something farther away. They had a court case, and it went on for 35 years. There finally was a settlement arrived at. A lot of anecdotal information said: "Boy, did they ever get a sweetheart deal." Well, no. They had stuff stolen from them. Any way you talk about this, stuff was taken away from them improperly, without proper consultation. That creates suspicion. That creates mistrust. That creates fear, and it's all justified.

So how do you now build? Is it a situation where that was yesterday and here's today, and we're a new bunch or a new government? We're going forward, notwithstanding the fact that it took you 35 years to get some semblance of fairness on something that you had taken away from you completely improperly and without consultation or discussion. So how do you now establish that level of trust again? I think a referendum that is properly crafted and is absolutely bullet-proof as far as its clarity on rights and principles, which everybody can clearly understand, is absolutely crucial.

I'm sure we'll be wanting to try to submit something of a more formal nature, but what I would commend to you, if there is a significant amount of frustration, mistrust and apprehension on the part of first nations, is that they recognize their own lack of capacity. They need education and training; they need time. It takes time to build that trust and that understanding. So the whole treaty issue, whether it's determining whether it's a Sechelt band local government model or whether it's talking about all of the other fine points inside, is really getting beyond the major question. The major question is to build the trust, the understanding and the education of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. That's a major challenge.

If there's a complex question that takes up half a page, if it's more than four or five sentences, it's going to make your job as a government, subsequent to a referendum, very, very difficult. There you go.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Steve. It's obvious that you've given some thought to the issues, and obviously your involvement leads to some very informed comment.

You mentioned the lack of trust that exists. I would agree. It's certainly out there. I guess that begs the question — and I would put it to you: given that lack of trust, doesn't it make it doubly difficult to arrive at treaties in a very short period of time?

S. Thorlakson: Absolutely. From nine years of bitter experience on the UBCM executive — and Gillian knows exactly what I speak of — where, from a local government perspective, we had provincial governments that said: "Well, yeah. This is this, and this is entrenched in law." Then, lo and behold, we had a provincial government that had a book entry that said they owed local governments $236 million. At the stroke of a pen the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs came and spilled blood all over the floor of the conference in Penticton, saying: "It's just a paper entry. It doesn't mean anything."

Local governments are constantly trying to build relationships with the province. If ever there was a time when you, as the UBCM, said, "I don't think we can ever trust these guys again," well, that was it. While you had to continue to work with the government of the day, any hope of building a mutually respectful, trusting relationship was shattered — and shattered for a long time.

We struggled through step by step, trying to do other things, always cognizant that somewhere down the line the rug would get yanked out from under you. So I understand where first nations are coming from in that regard. Let's say that you go ahead and have a very clear, very succinct referendum that I hope, as an individual British Columbian, is passed by an overwhelming majority — in excess of 80 percent of the people — who vote intelligently and thoughtfully.

How do you entrench that so it cannot be changed, so that because of political and financial pressures you can't then abandon those principles?

We've had those kinds of things involved in our UBCM discussions at times, where we thought we had all the principles laid down. We constantly had to go back and back and back to the government and say: "You said this. This is where you talk about local governments being a legitimate and authentic and accountable third order of government, and about how you will consult with us on this, that and the other." We had to continually go back and say: "But you didn't. You didn't." The mistrust is there.

I don't know the mechanisms — whether you can entrench something in the Constitution Act of British Columbia that requires a higher percentage referendum of the people to remove it, so that first nations know this is locked in beyond any shadow of a doubt.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Steve. Your comments are very thoughtful, and I think the issue of trust is very much one where it's not what people say; it's what they do that leaves the lasting and trust-building impression. I think that's true on the non-aboriginal as well as the aboriginal side.

I wanted to just query you a little bit about the comments you made and the experience of what happened with the Department of Veteran Affairs. Are you thinking that the issue of compensation might be one that should be asked of the people of British Columbia? I know that a lot of aboriginal people have asked that there be a public acceptance statement that wrongs were done and that compensation should be paid. That's very much a part of the position some claimants have made. Governments have resisted that. Are you suggesting to us that that might be a question asked, that it's a trust-building mechanism to basically change an approach governments have taken?

If your answer to that is yes, do you have any thoughts about who should pay that bill? I can tell you that I for one am very nervous about how the balance of the costs of this entire exercise is being skewed towards British Columbia and, I guess, from Canada.

S. Thorlakson: Here again I'm not representing the views of my council; I'm representing my personal views on it. There's an old cliché that justice delayed is justice denied. When we think of the Doig and the Blueberry people who had to fight and struggle through 35 years of court in order to get a settlement…. They remain mistrustful of the system.

I don't think compensation, in a financial or a land sense, can replace justice. I think justice needs to be the core value. You must be just; you must be fair. I've never believed that money can buy rights or that money can replace rights or a lack of justice or a lack of settlement. There's a whole industry that's evolved over treaty negotiations and treaty settlements. Unfortunately, I think that sometimes the only people winning so far are the lawyers, with all due to respect to anyone in that profession who may be in the room. The people need to become full citizens of Canada and British Columbia with due respect so that they are not in fear of having it eroded away at a political whim or because it suits the terms and conditions.

Most of the first nations people that I talk to — chiefs, elders, regular citizens — want to just be full Canadians. They see themselves as Canadians, not as extraterritorial people who are under occupation. They see themselves as British Columbians. They see themselves as people from the Peace country who want that full participation. They don't want just lip service, but they do want to be part and parcel of the whole. I'm not sure that compensation is going to replace trust or justice.

G. Trumper: Thank you for the presentation. I knew you'd bring a very thoughtful presentation to us. This is just a statement, because I think you covered a lot of the things I was going to ask you. It certainly would be appreciated if you're able to, in some of the comments you made about what the questions should be…. We would really appreciate some of your thoughts on that, because I think you put very clearly, in a way, how we should proceed on that. It would be very helpful to get some comments from you, because I believe you could give a great deal of insight into this. I want to thank you for your presentation, Steve.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Steve. I think it was a terrific presentation. I asked Karen the question on the issue of self-government and what direction that should take. I would look to you for your views on that issue of self-government. It's certainly a large issue out there. In your view, should it reflect what local governments work under now? Should it take a different direction? If you have a comment on that, I'd appreciate it.

S. Thorlakson: The UBCM's position all the way along, the aboriginal affairs committee of the UBCM — I don't know if you've received a submission from them yet, but certainly I know that Aaron Dinwoodie would be bringing those positions forward — is support of municipal style. I don't think you can narrowly define it, because we're in the position right now, as local government, where we're redefining what is local government. The community charter is an evolutionary document and a revolutionary document, and it's not thoroughly and completely defined. It's part of another phase that's going to happen in a couple of years as it applies to regional districts as well.

I don't think you can use a cookie cutter. As former president of the UBCM Joyce Harder says, one size does not fit all. I don't think you can take a cookie cutter of the Sechelt Indian band local government and transplant that to the North Peace or to Port Alberni and say: "There — that's fair." They are different peoples coming from different histories and different expectations and different levels of connection. Some were nomadic and some weren't. Some had very different forms of culture than others did. They were dif-

ferent peoples. So I don't think you can use a cookie cutter. I think it may have some application in certain areas, but I'm not sure you can just say that that's the way it's going to be all across the province. I don't think that balloon will fly.

D. MacKay: Steve, if I could just expand on that a tiny bit — on the self-government issue. The Nisga'a treaty, I believe, has about 15 areas where if there's a dispute between the province and the federal government, the Nisga'a government has precedence. In other words, they supersede the province and the federal government. Do you support that type of self-government, where self-government with the natives would actually have powers that are not afforded other Canadians through municipal-style government or through the charter that's now evolving?

S. Thorlakson: I think the key word in that question is the word "evolving." While it's easy to throw off that there ought to be one level of federal government and federal government powers and authorities that's applied equally right across the land, I know that in British Columbia the expectation of local government is: set us free; we want to be unshackled a bit. Yet the folks in southern Ontario are really quite content, and the people in eastern Canada see it a different way again. Even as it applies to how national or provincial government works, drawing big, bold black lines around levels of authority except as it applies to principles, is going to make your ultimate job of treaty settlement take another hundred years, in my opinion.

I don't think it can be that narrowly and prescriptively defined without creating huge, long-term problems because of the differences in various first nations and their cultures and their bands. By the same token, the way we do business in the city of Fort St. John is different than the way they do business in the city of Dawson Creek, in the city of Chilliwack and in the city of Port Alberni.

While we work within a framework and a set of principles, it's how the community defines itself that determines how much of a scope it's going to take on in representing its community interests and how it even defines community interests. We're doing things in our local government that are outside of the traditional basics of water, sewers and chasing dogs. We tried to do it in a complementary sense with our MLA, Richard Neufeld, who is a tremendous advocate for us. We try to do it in a complementary sense with our MP, who has problems right now.

I don't think you can just have black lines. The communities are going to define that, and if the structures are too rigid, they'll rebel. I think the system has to be flexible enough, kind of like a water bed.

R. Visser: I just wanted to clarify this. What you're saying is that the objective of the provincial government with the referendum should be to draft questions that create the overarching principles for treaty-making in the province but that out of those questions, this will become necessarily local and necessarily flexible after that….

R. Visser: …but allow us to create the principles that will guide that flexibility.

S. Thorlakson: The core values have to be absolute as a first step towards re-establishing a higher level of trust. I don't know if you ever reach the mountain top. By faith you shall move mountains, but faith is that you can pick up a shovel and move it one shovel-full at a time. Sorry, Val. I just realized that should have been your line. [Laughter.]

J. Les (Chair): On that note, Steve, thank you for coming this morning and sharing your views with us. We appreciate you taking the time and first of all discussing it with your council and providing us with some food for thought. I would encourage you, as you develop some further thoughts, to please share them with us on our website or by mail or through whatever means. We would look forward to that as well.

L. Papp: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's such a rare treat to see so many government officials up in the north. Thank you for coming.

Initially, I was going to speak on behalf of the Dawson Creek and District Chamber of Commerce, for whom I work. But lacking sufficient time to make a good, rounded presentation, I decided I would appear on my own. I am a Métis, and I have some points to share with you which you hopefully will find interesting and of some value to what you're trying to do.

I was born and raised in the Dawson Creek area and only learned of my Métis status in recent years, due to an uncle of mine on my mother's side who did research and compiled a book to show that in 1700 one of my distant relatives married a full-status native out east. There have been a couple other injections of native blood in my family since then, but that's where it all started.

As you're probably aware, being neither exactly white nor native leaves one in an awkward situation in some cases, such as government funding for education. While I was in college both here at Northern Lights College in Fort St. John and in Dawson Creek, I tried to obtain a bit of funding I'd heard about from some friends of mine who were full-status and basically didn't have any trouble getting funding. I applied for it, and because of my awkward situation — being stuck in the middle, so to speak — I never got any. What I did do, however, is put myself through college. I worked hard at it, and now I manage the offices of the chamber

That's one of the points I wanted to make — that I have learned to be…. Well, I've got myself into good employment and stuff based on my own merits. Whether I was black, white or red did not really matter, because I achieved dignity through hard work and labour, which I think is something that should be true for every Canadian regardless of who they are.

Personally, I think the time for handouts is over. I've been on several reserves throughout B.C. and Alberta to see brand-new houses half-destroyed, to see a general lackadaisical attitude amongst the residents of the community because very few were working.

Canada is known internationally as a very multicultural place, and I think it's time to stop isolating our native Canadians. We're a multicultural country here. Yes, we have rights that are entrenched in our constitution. But hey, if we've done them wrong in the past, I think we've paid for it by now. It's time for us to start thinking about the equality of all Canadians regardless of race, culture, creed, etc. Having visited several reserves, as I mentioned, I've concluded that full integration into society is much preferable to reserves.

I've also concluded that self-respect is achieved the same way for all races and that economic progress for any culture or community is achieved by having all physically able adults working. Whether it's skilled or unskilled, the fact that they're working is very, very important to their local communities. I think that's one thing that has not been addressed adequately. Money has been given; in some cases it has not been used wisely. But some years ago there was a mobile school from Northern Lights College that went out to isolated northern communities and taught carpentry skills to the locals. That was a very, very effective program. It took the education to them.

I want to mention one other thing. I have read the Bible in the past, and a quote sticks out very clearly from the apostle Paul, who said that they that do not work shall not eat. To me that means you still take care of people who are unable and single mothers and things — you help them somehow in a communal group sense — but anyone who's able to be working should be working — period.

Another issue that came up recently in Dawson Creek — I experienced this firsthand some years ago — was the fact that dentists in Dawson Creek would not look after the teeth of the poor on welfare. One reason was that the Ministry of Social Services was very, very slow in making their payments, and the payments they eventually did make were insufficient for the dentists to receive. So all the dentists in Dawson Creek said: "Fine. We won't do business with the Ministry of Social Services for dentistry anymore."

People then had to come up here — hitchhike or whatever way they could get up — to Fort St. John, where at that time there were two dentists willing to help out. I understand, because it has become a public issue, that recently there is not one dentist in Dawson Creek who is willing to help the poor. That's great.

I think it's time to end free education. I say this because I have a full-status friend who has basically a collection of diplomas and certificates, who still doesn't work. He's found a way that he can stay on a form of handout without actually contributing to society. On and on it goes. It has upset me to the point where I don't speak to the man anymore. I think it's just ridiculous that he gets away with that.

As I mentioned earlier, I think a level playing field is important for everybody. We are a multicultural country. It's time to end these disputes and get on with being Canadians. Reserves need to be run just the same as all other local governments. They pay their taxes the same as everything else. There are elected, accountable officials there. There's a public works department. There's infrastructure, etc.

One last point I want to make is that because of the isolated conditions on reserves and whatever other reasons, there's a lot of alcoholism and drug addiction. Well, that happens in any case where there are too many people who are not working. Getting the training out to these people, getting the training going…. Full integration into society is what I'm really trying to say. I speak as a Métis.

That's all I have to say, really. I'm quite open to questions, ladies and gentlemen.

D. MacKay: Larry, I just wanted to ask you…. You made the comment about "stop isolating the natives." We've got some legislation that's been with us now for 100-plus years, the Indian Act, which has separated the natives from the rest of the multicultural society that they now live in, and it continues to isolate the natives. We're here talking about treaties with the natives, who have probably been harmed economically and physically over the years. So we continue down the same road as the Indian Act. We're looking at signing new treaties to separate one group of people in our mosaic society from the rest of society.

I wonder if you're suggesting that there should be some pressure put on the federal government to get rid of the Indian Act and perhaps to stop signing treaties and to deal with people as individuals, to help individuals as opposed to collective groups and signing treaties. Is that it?

L. Papp: Basically, yeah. It's time for a level playing field. Obviously this process has not worked well, because here we are 100 years later still talking about basically the same kinds of things.

I've read parts of Treaty 8. I don't profess to have read it all. A good chunk of what I read dealt with not just giving people land to isolate them but giving them tools and implements in order to work the land and support themselves, to work and be productive within their communities. Yeah, I hold to that — a level playing field. It's time that isolation should be over.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Larry, for coming up and making the trip and your presentation. A question. Knowing that we have to negotiate the treaties…. This is not a question of "should or shouldn't we?" This is an

issue of looking to the principles that we have to gain from British Columbians so that we can negotiate and hopefully reach final settlement. It's very clear that the issues of land and cash will be on the table.

I'm just looking for your view on the issue of money. Would your preference, if the resolve comes, be a cash settlement to individuals or to the bands? I would just like to get your view on that and what you see.

L. Papp: I know a few instances where moneys have been given to band leaders that were somewhat corrupt. I've seen it in several reserves I've been in, where the local administrators, the local band leaders, had slightly better things than everyone else.

Personally, I think there should be more done on an individual basis while, at the same time, more fully integrating these Canadians into our main-line society.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've answered the question that I was going to ask. It's on the individuals versus the band. Maybe I'm hearing you say that if we were going to put a question on the referendum, there should be something that says: "Do you agree with the present governmental structure of first nations, or should it be individuals?"

L. Papp: As far as structure goes, one point I made is that I feel that first nations government should be just the same as everybody else's. They're quite welcome to form their groups and have the band and councils and all that — but as far as the actual governing of the area, the same as everyone else.

The individual awards versus group awards. I think there should be more individuals, but yet it has to be monitored. Maybe some assistance would be needed to help these people invest wisely or to spend their money on their college or whatever.

V. Anderson: Two comments that come from listening to you, and I appreciate your comments. You, in a sense, said you had discovered who you were before you discovered that you were Métis. Then you rediscovered who you were…

V. Anderson: …afterwards. I remember my father saying years ago, with regard to the aboriginal people, that they should be able to be fully who they are, and then they choose to become part of the society from their choice. You have some people who are continuing to choose to live on reserve with the lifestyle that's there and other people who are choosing to live in the city, off reserve, with the complications that are there. Both areas are reporting to me that a major problem they have is that whether they live on reserve or in the city, they are basically rejected by many of their fellow citizens, even as they were when they were placed on reserves in the first place. How do we overcome that kind of historical, ongoing process that created reserves in the first place in different forms that exist till now? Your having been there might be helpful to us.

L. Papp: It's a tough call, admittedly. But friends of mine who are Chinese and East Indian have had similar problems coming to Canada. So it's not a case of only Indians having some trouble integrating. It's a challenge for everybody. We brag — our nation brags — internationally that we are multicultural. So I think we just have to look at ways of helping everyone to be more integrated in society — period. We're Canadians.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions? Thank you for coming, Larry. We enjoyed hearing from you. I believe you were the first Métis person that's made a presentation to the committee. We appreciate that.

S. Viens: I am quite satisfied that the present government is going to perhaps lessen some of the anxiety that the people of British Columbia are feeling right now about land claims.

I grew up in this area; I was actually born here in Fort St. John. Growing up, we really didn't ever have dialogue in our communities about land claims. Now, when we go into the coffee shops around the area, I would say that it is probably one of the main topics that comes up. I am fearful that if we don't address some of the issues, we are going to be a province that is not as happy to live in. I don't like the racial comments and the anger that I'm hearing from people. I think this referendum process is a very good process because it's allowing the common person to feel, for the first time, like they are part of the process and that their opinions are being asked for. That's a very important step in perhaps lessening some of the tension that we hear building.

I wanted to speak quite briefly to two different issues this morning. The first is the form of government. I think most of us would say that aboriginal communities need to be able to control their own affairs. I also think the form of government is something that can be decided by referenda. I don't think that in treaty negotiation after treaty negotiation we need to be sitting there deciding on what form of government. British Columbians, both business people and just citizens, need to have consistency. We don't want to be thinking: "My goodness, where am I at right now? What kind of regulations am I going to be facing in this community?" I think we need some consistency across this province. If we were to negotiate a whole lot of different types of government out there, it's going to end up as chaos in this province. I don't think businesses will be able to flow easily from community to community if we don't have that kind of consistency.

My own personal preference is that we go with the municipal-style model of government. I think it works. It has flexibility. Mr. Thorlakson was commenting that we can't just have black boxes that we're going to put communities in. I think he already said that there is

flexibility, that within our municipal governments we operate differently but within some very defined, known parameters.

That's basically all I have to say on the form of government. I think it is something that should be addressed in the referendum. People should be able to say yes or no to the form of government. Should it be one style for all of the different aboriginal communities in the province? I believe that yes, it should be.

The second issue I wanted to comment on is resource ownership. It's my understanding that virtually all of B.C. is under land claims. I think it's vitally important to be addressing where we're going with our resources. B.C. is a resource-based province. We rely heavily upon the taxes flowing from our resources to fund the various things that government does for the people of B.C. If we don't take an umbrella look at where those resources are going to be owned, we might run into the situation of saying: "Well, under this treaty all of these resources were given away." You go on to the next one, and the resources here have been put into the hands of the aboriginals in that community. You get to the third one, and there's another chunk of resources taken out of government revenue. You get to the fourth, and all of a sudden the people of B.C. are going to be saying, "Whoa. Where's the funding going to come from to operate government?"

I really think we need to look now, while we have the opportunity to do it, at the large picture of ownership and management of those resources and at where the funding is going to come from to operate government as we go though the various treaty negotiations. Maybe it's going to be in the form of taxation coming back. I don't have those answers, but I think it's a very serious issue we're addressing at this point in time. That's basically all I had to comment on today.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Shirley. If you were designing these referendum questions, what specific areas do you think those questions should cover in order to produce a meaningful result and move forward?

S. Viens: Do you mean how many questions should be on the referendum? Should it be just broadly based principles? What I said today isn't really broadly based principles. They are quite specific, and I think there needs to be some specific questions in some areas, not just broadly based questions on principles. I think there are some issues where we can move beyond just a broad principle.

J. Les (Chair): The mandate of the committee is to come up with the guiding principles for treaty negotiations, as a result of this process. I understand what you're saying, but I wondered if you could perhaps flesh that out a bit more.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Our committee, at the end of November, has to come up with the suggested questions to be asked in the referendum. I wondered if you had any more thoughts on that, as to what areas we should be covering beyond perhaps what you'd already mentioned or, more specifically, what those questions should be.

S. Viens: I can't answer that right now because I haven't put enough concrete thought into it. We, meaning my family, intend to do a written submission also, and I think it would be more appropriate to make sure it's properly phrased, to answer that question…

Just a question, reflecting back to possible questions. You talked about resource revenue, and just so that I'm clear…. Possibly something that may fit into a question scenario with what I'm hearing you say is that resource revenue and the extraction of those resources would not be given to any individual band but would be used for the betterment of all British Columbians. Is that the direction you were taking on that as far as taxation? Stumpage, for instance, on traditional lands possibly would not be put over in one lump for first nations while the rest of British Columbia realize revenue from others. Is that a fair summation of the resource?

D. MacKay: Shirley, I'm going to see if I can bail you out here. I don't know if I was reading your mind, but Blair just touched on it very briefly.

The resource allocation. As you say, B.C. relies on the extraction of resources from this province to pay for government and all the social programs that we enjoy. I got the impression from listening to your comments that you probably had two questions in your mind. I'm not sure about how to word them, but the first question would be the type of government. Should that be one of the principles that the negotiators should be going to the table with?

D. MacKay: And the other one is resource allocation. Should the people of the province decide to give up some of the resources for treaties if it's going to take away from the ability of the province to provide social programs? There's two questions there that I seem to…. Was I reading your mind? Is that a fair assumption?

S. Viens: Oh, for sure. Yes. Those were the two questions that I was willing to comment on today. We definitely need to address those, and I think the people of B.C. have a right to be commenting on our resources. Are we going to be giving them away and then also not get back taxes? It's my understanding that's part of what has happened in some of the treaties. What was aspired to was that aboriginal communities will gain ownership of resources that now belong to the Crown and still not have to be included, in the same way as all other Canadians are, in paying taxes in our tax system. I think it's a serious long-term issue that has to be looked at.

B. Belsey: Good morning, Shirley, and thank you very much for your presentation. I'm going to lead you away from what you've said here and just ask you a question that really comes from a previous speaker. You mentioned how you were born and raised in this community. I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts you could leave with us regarding the Treaty 8 process and how it's working today. We've heard a comment that it's been in existence for 100 years and that there are difficulties. Would you like to add to that?

S. Viens: I certainly don't think it has created any kind of finality. We have roadblocks going on. We have businesses that are really not able to know with any certainty that they are going to be able to go about their business. Nobody has defined what consultation means. When have you absolutely achieved consultation? I don't think that type of question needs to be on the referendum. It is not something that should be there.

S. Viens: Those are issues that need to be dealt with. If I want to go into an area that is deemed an area where there has to be consultation happening before you can conduct some kind of activity on the land, then I want to be able to have somebody tell me what that consultation is. Has that flown from a poorly crafted treaty? Maybe it needed to be more definite.

B. Belsey: I agree that it shouldn't be part of the referendum question, but it was a comment made during a previous presentation that I found interesting.

S. Viens: We have a situation here. We're seeing headlines in the paper about a band that is composed of two different aboriginal groups wanting to split up. I think that even within the aboriginal communities there are some real issues they're struggling with, and they all belong to the same treaty. They all signed the same treaty. I don't think we can say that just because you're a first nations person, you're all going to think alike. That is just not true — not that any one of you sitting here at the table thinks that.

Again, I think the treaties have to have enough flexibility in them to address the different aboriginal communities. You can't just say each treaty is going to be the same. If I can refer back to the form of government, I think there are some issues, like the form of government, that can be imposed upon, because there is flexibility within that system for the communities to direct themselves according to their custom.

V. Anderson: I'll come back to the resources, because you stimulate some interesting questions. As I understand it, the aboriginal people are saying that in order to have economic viability, having land is of no value unless we can use the resources of that land in order to develop the jobs and the opportunities we need. On the other hand, I heard continually in the last nine years in the Legislature representatives from northern B.C. saying: "We have land and lots of resources, but those resources are going to somebody else. They're not coming back to our local communities. We're not getting the benefits of those resources, and we demand a change in that rejection."

Community forests have been one idea. Communities have undertaken to have community forests so that they can take control and have a resource that they own. Royalties come back, first of all, to the community from which they come, because we should have a prior claim over them rather than other parts of the province. I hear the aboriginal raising one issue, and I hear the non-aboriginal raising essentially the same issue but from a different perspective. I'm wondering, if we listen to both of them, if there is some meeting place in the middle that we haven't looked at yet. Therefore, are we being asked to look outside the box?

S. Viens: I think there needs to be an equitable distribution of government funds across the province. I don't think that any one area of the province should be saying: "Here is what is generated in my yard. I want to keep all of it." We are going to have some desperately poor areas of the province, and we're going to have some very rich areas of the province. I believe that it needs to go communally, provincially, into general revenues in equitable distribution and that every community in this province has health care, education and all the things we expect our citizens to have. That can only happen if the government has the funds available to equitably distribute among its citizens.

V. Anderson: There are two parts to that. One is having the funds. The other is the question of how it's equitably distributed. Perhaps if we worked on that, we would partly have the answer for the aboriginal. Without looking at how we do it, they have reason to be concerned, perhaps, as our other communities do. We have common concerns. That's what I'm getting at.

M. Hunter: Shirley, thank you. Like Mr. Anderson, I found your presentation very stimulating. I want to

just pursue this point you made about the need for a definitive consultation process. You made the point that businesses have some difficulty knowing what the consultation process is, and this was in respect to your answer on Treaty 8.

Clearly one of the messages we're hearing is the economic component, the need to get on with life so that we can grow investment in British Columbia. Under the current law, starting with Sparrow and through the Supreme Court cases, there is quite a definitive consultation process required by government with respect to aboriginal rights and title. I'm maybe posing a question that you don't have the answer to. Are you suggesting in your comments on consultation that this might be a fruitful area for a referendum question — that the existing obligation of government to consult the aboriginal people could be tied into the overall consultation framework that exists amongst government and citizens in general? Do you see the requirement to consult with aboriginal people as an obstacle to whatever we're trying to do?

S. Viens: I don't think the requirement to consult is an obstacle. I think that defining, so each party knows when proper consultation has occurred, is what hasn't happened. Everybody knows that as a result of the various court cases you mentioned, consultation is required. Industry and business have no problem with achieving that. The problem is knowing what constitutes proper consultation. Is it five meetings? Is it a meeting on location? That seems to be causing a huge holdup. Meaningful consultation has never been given proper definition or been put into regulations. Here is consultation.

I don't think that on either side you can have a party saying: "We attempted to call you. You weren't there. Therefore, we consulted." That isn't consultation. We also can't have the other party saying: "You met with us 15 times, but I still want to meet again." At some point in time both parties need to know the expectations, because I think there's a responsibility on both sides when you're talking about consultation. That seems to be a major issue right now. Neither party has agreed to the definition of meaningful consultation.

J. Les (Chair): No further questions? Thank you for coming this morning, Shirley. We appreciated your being here.

B. Lekstrom: I would just like to welcome Her Worship Mayor Lenore Harwood from Hudson's Hope. Welcome, Lenore. Thanks for being here.

R. Cunningham: Good morning. My eyes are not good, and my voice isn't particularly good this morning. I have some health problems, but I'll try to make my point. I'm nervous; I'm a little inexperienced in speaking to such an august group with obviously inherent wisdom on the part of most people other than myself. What I've tried to speak to as best I can, in perhaps a very narrow sense, is that material which you do have.

I'd like to start out with giving you a little bit of my personal background so that you'll understand, perhaps, where some of my feelings come from. I am a retired member of the RCMP with 34 years of service. I was stationed in a number of places throughout the province. Probably those areas associated with aboriginal communities would principally be Terrace, Prince Rupert in the mid-fifties, and the last posting I had and retired from was Kitimat.

So I have an exposure, if you will, that runs quite a gamut in the sense that in the early fifties tremendous abuses were evident, principally through alcohol, and the victim, of course, was the native community. The perpetrators probably were white bootleggers. In any event, the social problems that were experienced were most unfortunate. The last exposure I had to a native community was probably the best I've ever seen. In many cases their meetings were conducted in a fashion and with a degree of professionalism that was lacking in some other meetings that I have attended — that being the Kitimat native community where you addressed the Chair and responded to the Chair, and everyone came in suits and things of that nature.

I'm not sure about the purpose of the hearings. I assume it would be a determination on your part or an experiment on your part to fashion specific referendum text questions. I guess the concern I would have — and probably shared at least by Mayor Lasser, because I do have his agreement in making this presentation — is that at some point in time, in my opinion, you should have a time-framed ramping-up process where the native communities have the same responsibility, the same accountability as any other municipal, regional or provincial government. I think that's first and foremost. There should be a degree of transparency to the community as a whole. As you know, municipalities must be audited. Anyone can view the audit, and there is the opportunity for persons in the community to participate in a question-and-answer period and so on. You have to be a resident of a municipality to vote. You're not necessarily a resident in terms of standing for election — or that's my understanding. There has to be that level of accountability, and that's probably the best word. It may not be a fair or accurate word, but there has to be more transparency in the sense that non-aboriginal persons can view the functions of any government — federal, provincial, regional or whatever. Perhaps that's not as evident as it should be today in some cases.

Local concerns. I think it's a matter of perception, whether or not it's a matter of fact. An element of concern in the framing of a question would, I suppose, be one that would suggest taxable equity. If accurate, you will hear stories where native reserves — if I can put it in that context — are purchasing capital equipment with some tax incentives which would permit them to

operate or encourage that operation to take place on reserve. My experience has been that, in fact, capital equipment does move off. I am reasonably well informed, I think, that that kind of equipment is used on construction of the pipelines and so on. The perception is that through these tax incentives, there's a disadvantage for non-aboriginals to acquire the capital and the equipment to remain relatively competitive.

Inquiries I have made suggest that revenue derived from equipment rental or operation or revenue off-reserve may be — should be, perhaps — taxable in terms of a federal tax. I'm not sure of the terminology one should use, but I guess the expressed concern or the statement suggesting it to be fact is such that the capital item in itself is not factored into an operating cost. Therefore — I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well enough — it doesn't become subject to off-reserve-use taxation to the same extent that non-aboriginal purchasers, owners and operators of equipment would.

I have two conflicting stories. I tried to check it out to the extent that I can. A framed question would perhaps flow from the statement: "Is there competitive equality in native-operated stores as opposed to non–aboriginal-operated stores?" There are two stories I've heard, particularly in the area of Moberly Lake. I stand to be corrected by anyone, because I can't be absolutely certain that my facts are as stated.

One non-aboriginal person said that he operates at about a 25 percent cost disadvantage to a store that's operated under the name of Crow Feathers or something similar to that. That's perhaps not fair in his eyes. He is suggesting that he's at this kind of tax disability, if I can put it like that. My next suggestion would be that there has to be some degree of recognizing the abilities and rights of entrepreneurial spirits to be as competitive in price in whatever fashion they can, as long as tax issues and taxation revenue don't enter into that — perhaps inequality. That could be addressed as well.

My closing comment in my e-mail…. I appreciate the fact that on short notice, I was allowed to come here. I'm probably more interested in listening and learning than I am in speaking. I didn't realize I'd be given this opportunity so quick. On that basis, I thank you all.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Ray. Are there questions from committee members?

V. Anderson: Thank you very much for coming. A good deal of your activity would have been in legal kinds of situations, as an RCMP officer. One of the areas that has not been covered in our presentations but certainly is there in people's minds is the relationship of aboriginal people to the legal system, which for many people has appeared to be unfriendly and unbalanced. Have you any comments in that area from your experience?

R. Cunningham: I'd like to, if I can. I can use a couple of analogies. One is that when I was in Kitimat, as the story relates back to me from Chief Gerald Amos, if any of you know him…. He's an excellent individual; I highly respect him. He was telling me that in the older days, what they used to do if you had a misbehaving — we'll say, in this case — youth is take him down the Douglas Channel into the Devastation Channel or to a point — if you're familiar with the area — about 35 air miles south of Kitimat. There used to be a beach. The beach was called, and still is called to those who know it, Monkey Beach.

I gather from the stories that in the old days, for some reason natives were quite frightened of monkeys — whether they were on ships that came up in the exploratory early 1800 days or not. The greatest terror one could inflict and the greatest causative factor for rueing their conduct was the fact that they were either threatened or transported for a week — on their own, without food or anything — down to this point called Monkey Beach. Chief Amos told me that without fail, there was a marked change in the behaviour of that individual, according to the stories of elders, when they came back.

Yes, I think there is an effective native method of adjusting, if you will, the thinking of some misbehaving persons on the reserve. As you know, they have the healing circle. I think there's another term they use as well. Clearly, my experience with courts — and I'm not sure whether Dennis would share it as well…. Not very long ago we had a court system that in my view was very ineffective in dealing with a number of court issues, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. In fact, a little while ago the time frames were about a year between the event taking place and the individuals coming together with some resolution.

To my knowledge from my practice in Chetwynd, they recently introduced a program which actually cuts out the time frame, and when you have agreement between the victim, so to speak, and the bad guy, you have a much earlier — about a six-week — resolution process. That could involve aboriginal persons as well. Now, they do have an individual who's with the West Moberly or the Saulteau that's actually involved in this kind of process as well. I encourage that, because I think some of the problems that the native community experiences…. For whatever reason, they don't feel there's a full adjustment to the situation via the court system.

I believe we've had a native culture that's much older than our own, and in the past they've been very effective in dealing with some of their own problems. I think they should be given that opportunity, but also there has to be a recognition that it has to have elements of fairness and transparency and community participation. Thank you.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Obviously, our job is to try and form and advise on the sort of questions that go on the referendum. We have had governance for first nations raised many times and also the fact that any agreement that comes to be put in place has to meet provincial and federal government

laws. It has to meet that at that level. What I'm hearing you saying — and I may be putting words in your mouth; I'm not sure — is that regarding the justice system with the aboriginal people, one size doesn't fit all and that somehow in the whole process we do have to bring in other ways of dealing with the issue, because unfortunately, in our prisons today probably the greatest majority of people are aboriginal people. Maybe that's not the way to deal with some of the issues.

I would be inclined to go along with what you said. If there's any doubt in anyone's mind, do I feel that we have a justice system that's functioning to the extent that I would be reasonably comfortable with? No, for a variety of reasons.

It's in the mechanics of the system itself. You can't have a system where Crown counsel, at least a few years ago, would walk in, in some cases, with 100 files involving all sorts of…. Perhaps this is deviating from the purpose of the committee here, but I think any opportunity that is subject to scrutiny, agreement and, again, the word transparency…. Probably more importantly to the public, it's an effective administrative function of a community problem. If you can arrive at any kind of system that will improve that, any kind of system that lends itself to perhaps being more effective for a cultural setting or group or ethnic group or whatever you want to call it, then I think it's worthy of looking at very carefully. The bottom line is that the earlier you arrive at a satisfactory solution that meets some kind of standards, the fewer problems we have.

B. Belsey: Ray, thank you very much for your presentation and joining us this morning. Our goal, of course, at the end of all this is to put together our recommendations with reference to a question or questions that may be on a referendum. You mentioned native communities and the style of government and made reference to a municipal style of government. I'm wondering: have you any idea of how something like that could appear in a question? Have you given that any thought at all?

R. Cunningham: Given the opportunity, I'd like to. I'd like to sit down, because it's a very thoughtful question you've asked, and I'd like to be in a position to give a reciprocating, thoughtful answer. So I'll reserve that, if I have the option of coming back or communicating it later.

B. Belsey: You're aware of one of the brochures back there that has the website on it and the address that you could get in touch with.

D. MacKay: I'm going to reserve my questions till after the meeting is recessed.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Ray, for coming this morning, and do give our regards to Charlie Lasser. He's a good friend.

That concludes the presentations for this morning. We will recess at this point and reconvene at 2 o'clock.

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. We will reconvene the hearing of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. For this afternoon so far I have four people who would like to make a presentation to the committee. Before we begin, I would like to underline again the central mission of what we're about, and that is to gather from people their input in terms of what they believe the questions should be that we ask in a one-time provincial referendum on treaty principles.

This is not about whether we should engage in the treaty-making process and settle with first nations. That is a given under the constitution, but how we do that and the principles that should surround that is what we're interested in hearing about. By November 30 we are to prepare a report that advises government on the questions they should ask in the referendum.

R. Zalinko: Good afternoon. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for coming up to the great soon-to-be-white north. This isn't normal weather up here. It should be cold.

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, the statements I've made in my submission are true and accurate with people I've met and had discussions with concerning constitutional issues. Hopefully, I'm not erring in the statements I'm making.

My main submission for the committee to take into consideration as part of the referendum is: do you want the province of British Columbia to continue invading the exclusive federal jurisdiction concerning aboriginal peoples provided for by the British North America Act, 1867, section 91, clause 24?

I believe that under the Canadian constitution, the province of British Columbia signed away in 1871 all rights to negotiate with the aboriginals. Mr. Chair, I believe you just made a comment that under the constitution, we have the right to negotiate.

Concerning the first question, I feel this question should be on the referendum, because it does fall within the principles of what you're requiring for the committee. The province of B.C. has no authority to negotiate treaties with the native people. That's exclusive federal jurisdiction. British Columbia signed that away to the federal government in 1871, and I don't see why the province is negotiating and spending British Columbia taxpayers' dollars on doing so. That's the main part of my submission.

R. Zalinko: Yes. I don't understand where B.C. has the authority to be at the treaty table, when we signed that over to the federal government.

J. Les (Chair): Right. Well, from a first nations perspective, I think there's every reason for B.C. to be at the table, because a lot of these treaty negotiations are about land which is held by the provincial Crown, for example.

R. Zalinko: I fully understand that. But should British Columbia not be negotiating on behalf of the federal government in good faith and all of these negotiations be funded by the federal government?

J. Les (Chair): I'm not sure that the federal government would delegate its treaty-making authority to the provincial government.

R. Zalinko: Why, then, is the provincial government negotiating? We do not have the constitutional power to negotiate with the natives. It's in the British Columbia Terms of Union. I've got it underlined here — section 10, I believe. As far as I understand it, there's never been a change to this document, dated 1871. British Columbia does not have the authority to negotiate with the natives. It's purely a federal jurisdiction.

J. Les (Chair): I must tell you that I am not a lawyer. Mr. Nettleton is, and perhaps he would like to take a shot at this. But my understanding is that under the Terms of Union of 1871, the federal government assumed the full obligation to deal with the native people as they then were. I do not read that as prohibiting British Columbia's participation in treaty negotiations in the modern era.

As I tried to indicate a moment ago, because of the fact that treaties necessarily involve discussions about land which is held by the provincial Crown, I think it is necessary for the provincial government to be at the treaty table along with the federal government. That's just my reading of it; others may have a different version. I'm not sure. As I said, I am not a lawyer. I am not trained to delve that deeply into those kinds of matters, but in a very simple way, that is my read of it.

R. Zalinko: I don't profess to be a lawyer either, but my understanding of the documents is basically that British Columbia signed over the power to negotiate with the Indians to the federal government. They are in charge of the land and management of the natives.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Sure. Ron, in terms of this discussion, what I would be quite happy to do is get some background material which would provide you with some historical perspective on how we got where we are now, some information with respect to federal policy in and around treaty negotiations.

My question to you, however, at this point is this: have you given any thought to the referendum — given, in fact, that it is our task to entertain submissions with respect to the referendum — principles in and around treaties generally and specifically questions that you might like to see placed to British Columbians, including yourself and others in this part of the world, with respect to the treaty process? Have you given that any thought?

R. Zalinko: The main thought I've given on that, of course, deals with the right of British Columbia to enter into treaties and negotiate treaties with the natives. That's what I put in my submission. I feel a question on the referendum would be: do we want the province to continue invading — you don't have to use the word "invading" — exclusive federal jurisdiction concerning aboriginal peoples? I think the people of B.C. should say: "Yes, British Columbia should do that."

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): The way it's worked in the past — and I'm sure you're familiar with this, Ron — is that the feds have tended to be involved with respect to cash, and the province has been involved — with the Nisga'a agreement, for example — in terms of the land. That's something in which British Columbians want a say with respect to questions around not only cash but land and the treaty process generally. If you can, for the moment, get beyond the question of whether or not we in fact have some obligation in our involvement with respect to treaties, my question to you is this: what kind of question would you like to see on the referendum?

R. Zalinko: I would say, getting beyond what I have stated on there, that I think the main thing is:

should there be a full and final settlement to the treaty process? Let's get it over with. It's been going on for hundreds of years at great expense to the taxpayers of British Columbia and Canada. The native people have to understand that society is here. Let's be with society. Let's make everybody equal. The main thing is: let's have a full and final short-term settlement and not drag this on for another ten years at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Just for your information as well, Ron, it's been estimated — and it's hard to quantify — that the costs associated with not settling treaties, the impact with respect to British Columbia on a yearly basis, is somewhere in the range of $1 billion. Those are huge dollars, costs that we can ill afford. So I agree with you. We do have to get on with treaties. We do have to have certainty and finality. Questions around certainty and finality are the kind of things we'll be giving some thought to over the course of the next few weeks.

R. Zalinko: I don't dispute the treaty process at all. There has to be a process. My main concern was the expense that the provincial government is putting into this, where I believe in the constitution it is under federal jurisdiction. The federal government should be paying for this. But B.C. should be involved in the negotiations.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I'd be happy to get you that information. It provides you with something of a historical perspective.

G. Trumper: Just on a point of clarification — and I am quoting, so I can't be held to incorrectness. This actually was said by the Attorney General yesterday, which just tells you that he was giving part of the background: "When we joined Canada in 1871 there was an obligation of the government to continue to supply lands for the purpose of setting aside Indian reserves." That's part of the context it comes from. So that goes on why B.C. has to be here to provide the lands. I don't think anybody would want to have the federal government giving up provinces' rights to be part of the land acquisition, if there is any. So it does go way back in history. We do have some obligations.

R. Zalinko: I understand the part on the obligation of the lands — but financial settlements? That's not covered by that at all. It does indeed specify the words "land settlements."

M. Hunter: I wanted to let you know that you're not the only person in this province who takes the position that you proposed to us. A number of my constituents in Nanaimo have looked at the Terms of Union and the British North America Act and have reached the conclusion that you have. I would suggest to you that the legal confines of your argument — and neither of us is a lawyer — is probably one that withstands some legal examination.

The problem I have, as I pointed out to my own constituents, is that from a pragmatic point of view of getting on with the business of British Columbia, it becomes a bit moot, at least in my opinion. As Paul Nettleton just said, the opportunity costs of the situation we are in now have certainly been on the minds of many people who have spoken to this committee over the past few days.

You did say something just a moment ago that I wanted you to confirm. I was going to ask you, since you're not a lawyer, what the motivation was for your focusing on what you said in this submission. You went on to say, in answer to a comment Paul made, that you thought the feds should pay. That is the practical issue. Is that your motivation? Is it your concern that British Columbia is accepting costs that you think it should not be accepting?

R. Zalinko: Yes. One of my biggest concerns as a British Columbia taxpayer is the dollars being spent on this.

M. Hunter: And do you think that is a question that this committee might consider recommending to the Legislature of B.C. — the cost-sharing issue?

R. Zalinko: Yeah, I feel that's a very good question, especially under the sections I highlighted in there where the federal government is the full and final authority. They have all the jurisdiction. I feel that British Columbia should be bargaining in good faith, on behalf of the federal government, with the natives in British Columbia. There's been an awful lot of provincial money spent on this, where that should be a federal jurisdiction.

D. MacKay: Ron, just to touch on your comments and to expand a little bit on what Gillian said. When we signed the Terms of Union in 1871, we were obligated to provide lands for the benefit and use of the natives. In 1924 the Dominion of Canada, through an order-in-council, advised the province of British Columbia that we had met all the obligations insofar as providing lands for the natives. We had met our obligations, and he said: "Welcome to Confederation." Your argument does have some validity to it. I just wanted to expand a little bit on what Gillian told you.

R. Zalinko: Thank you. Actually, I was aware of that 1924 clause; I just didn't put it in there.

O. Mott: Good afternoon to you all, and welcome to Fort St. John. I'm afraid this has been quite rushed. I

just have one rough copy for myself, but I'll forward it to you in a more formal presentation.

My name is Oliver Mott. I have been a teacher of English as a second language in this school district, Peace River North, for the past 20 years. I'd like to state from the outset that I don't believe a general referendum is an appropriate or fair mechanism for deciding the question of aboriginal land claims or self-determination. The referendum process is divisive by nature. In this instance, it would allow a majority-dominant population to determine the future of a small minority, but of a minority which certainly would seem to have legitimate claims. These claims might be seen to conflict with the interests of the majority group.

There's a clear history of systemic and social prejudice in Canada and B.C., from the earliest days of exploration and colonization to the contempt of the native culture shown by Chief Justice Allan McEachern in the more recent Gitxsan-Wet'suwet'en case in 1991. There's been a striking lack of tolerance, not to say acceptance, of beliefs, values and attitudes which run counter to the majority social view. I don't believe that the general non-aboriginal population is free of such prejudice, and the outcome of a referendum is almost certainly preordained.

I believe that the current Liberal government in B.C. won the election with 58 percent of the popular vote. Is that correct? The composition of your commissions, I understand, is 100 percent Liberal. You're acting on a populist, superficially appealing agenda. That doesn't seem to be a state of affairs that inspires confidence in balanced decision-making.

My major concern regarding questions on the proposed referendum is to establish that the respondents have a sufficient depth of thought, respect and knowledge regarding the first nations of B.C. I have to say that I don't think that I have the best background, and yet I may perhaps be better informed than most other residents of B.C. That may be arrogance on my part; I don't know. The purpose of my questions is, therefore, to discover the knowledge base, or lack of it, on which the respondents to the referendum are voicing their opinions.

I have a few questions here. The first one would be: do you believe that you harbour any prejudice in favour of or against the first nations people of B.C.? — and explain what you mean. The second question would be: how long have your own family or your own ancestors lived in your area of B.C.? Third: how long have the ancestors of the local native bands lived in your area of B.C.? When were the native peoples granted the right to vote federally, and when were they granted the right to vote provincially? How many native bands or reserves are there in B.C.? Name the native bands in your local area.

You see, these questions are all aimed to see what people know about the local people who are living around them. I feel that if they don't know anything about them, then they really don't have the right to decide for those people.

Name the native bands in your local area. Are the traditional languages still spoken at all? What are, or were, those languages? What qualifies a certain community of people for nationhood? Do you believe that any local native community constitutes a nation? Did any native group ever have the rights of sovereignty and self-determination? Do they have those rights to sovereignty and self-determination now? If not, by what historical events or mechanisms have they come to lose them?

Then I wanted to ask whether people had heard of the report on aboriginal peoples that came out from the federal government. I've just lost the title again.

J. Les (Chair): Gathering Strength was the sort of report that came out of that.

O. Mott: It was Gathering Strength — yes, right. Have you heard of that, and if so, have you read any of it? I haven't read any of it myself.

D. Chutter: Oliver, thank you for your presentation. Could you read your first sentence as to why you oppose the referendum idea?

O. Mott: Well, the first one was that a referendum is divisive by nature. In this instance it would allow a majority-dominant population to determine the future of a small minority, but of a minority that would certainly seem to have legitimate claims. Those claims might be seen to conflict with the interests of the majority group.

D. Chutter: What I'm thinking about is that prior to that, you had a sentence as to why you disagreed with referendum because it conflicted or might question the rights of first nations people. I just wanted to….

D. Chutter: Your statement didn't connect with the idea that our objective is to get input from you on questions on principles. I'm concerned that your arguments put forward are based more on treaty negotiation processes and rights of first nations people, and we're strictly concerned about questions as to the principles that would guide negotiations. Is that correct to say?

O. Mott: Well, yes, I'm concerned about the notion of settling the claims through the process of a referendum. I just don't think that's fair, for the reasons I've stated.

D. Chutter: The objective of the referendum is to determine what the people of B.C. consider should be

the principles that would guide the process, guide negotiations, not the process itself.

O. Mott: Not the process itself. Okay. Well, even so, I think the whole matter is prejudiced against the minority group.

D. Chutter: My point would be that in my view, principles can be beliefs or values that are shared by all people. I think it's very important as to the type or content of the questions, whether they would be divisive or not. What I'm saying is they don't have to be divisive if they are the right types of questions in terms of principles or beliefs.

O. Mott: Yes, I would think the social history in Canada and B.C. would tend to render it difficult to achieve such questions that are neutral. That's my feeling.

G. Trumper: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think the question that Mr. Chutter raised is where I was going.

O. Mott: As you can see, I'm sort of bouncing in on this, and I have reacted rather suddenly to the commission here. Some of what I was doing may not have been appropriate.

G. Trumper: If I could just follow up on that, you do make some very good points — and you're a teacher, I understand — which leads me to: how do you educate people on the history? How do you get their attention?

Treaty negotiations have dragged on, where I come from. They've spent a lot of money, and they haven't got anywhere yet. What we're looking at is trying to get the process going again so that everybody knows exactly where they're going. There will be a referendum. Do you have suggestions as to how we are able to get that information out, which has been incredibly difficult? People listen, but I'm not sure they're hearing. How do you get the attention of people on the issues that are involved so that they can make, as you're saying, a good result?

O. Mott: I really don't know. Through a variety of mechanisms, I suppose — through the media, through holding public forums perhaps. But I'm not sure that you're really going to reach people or, in such a short space of time, be able to inform people sufficiently of the social history. I really don't know how you'd go about doing that.

Could you tell me what you're thinking of in terms of the referendum itself? What might the wording of the referendum be?

J. Les (Chair): That is very much in gestation in all of our minds at the moment, and it would be unfair, I think, for any of us to start speculating in this first week of our public hearings as to what those questions might be. That is why we are here and in other communities, to listen to input from the public.

J. Les (Chair): There are a couple of other questioners, but if I might just interject. Back in 1917 the men of British Columbia voted to allow women to vote. Perhaps, although you seem rather pessimistic, the people of British Columbia in a referendum will decide to do the right thing. I tend to be somewhat more optimistic. I count often on the generosity of people and on their willingness to make an appropriate and correct and generous decision. If we can inject that kind of process into treaty-making generally, I think we will address a lot of your social justice concerns in a much more appropriate and speedy manner than has been the case in the past.

Our recent history in the last eight years is that we've been in the treaty-making business. I say "business" advisedly, because to many people that is exactly what it has become. Here we are eight years later, and half a billion dollars have been spent on behalf of all three parties, and we have nothing to show for it. If I were an aboriginal person, I would be outraged. They're being led along the garden path.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Oliver, for your presentation. It's interesting to hear your perspective. We entertain submissions. Some proponents have suggested, in fact, that the referendum process is not a good idea. So we are interested in hearing why it's not from your perspective. I can tell you what the referendum is not. It is not some thinly veiled attempt to deny first nations that which is rightfully theirs.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): No. That is certainly something it is not. With respect to your concerns, I think it's very clear to me, at least from where I sit today, that you are very much an educator, and you're concerned with respect to the educational component in and around this process. It has been our position, in fact, that as part of our responsibilities with respect to this whole process, we are engaging British Columbians and also informing them. We will continue to do that with respect to all of our obligations in and around first nations and the treaty process. From my perspective at least, it is working. I expect it to continue to work.

O. Mott: I certainly see this as part of the educational process. I'm just wondering how far into the population these particular hearings will reach. I would certainly hope people are listening.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Certainly, and I think we all have a responsibility with respect to informing British Columbians. I would suggest that someone in your position is well positioned to talk with students and others that you contact on a daily basis with respect to these issues and to highlight some of the concerns that you have and others should have. We're all part of that process. We're optimistic in terms of where this will all lead. We understand the mistakes of the past and the problems in and around the treaty process, the costs associated with it, the uncertainty, but we're moving forward, and we're delighted to be doing that.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Oliver, for coming out. Just a statement to begin with. You mentioned that although this is a committee make up, it's only made up of one party, and that's the B.C. Liberals.

B. Lekstrom: Actually, the others were invited to participate, and for their own decision-making process, they opted not to participate in this process, which is unfortunate. I won't carry on long; I'll echo what Paul said.

I see this as a method to try and move this process forward, because I truly believe that what we've done for the past eight years hasn't been working. What we're trying to do is go out to all British Columbians and say, "Give us your views. Help us set some principles in place that we can negotiate on your behalf," and take that to a referendum on the principle base, not on individual treaties. Many people thought, originally going into the process, that this is what the forum may be for. I'm going to look at it with an optimistic outlook. I think we can do some things better than we've done in the past eight years. Truly, as John had pointed out, it hasn't worked, and it has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.

I want to really clarify the point that the eligibility for participation in this committee was offered to both Ms. MacPhail and Ms. Kwan, and they turned the offer down.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your presentation. A couple of comments on context. I think it's important to recognize that democracy is not the best instrument, but it's the best that we have in the world. We're all here because we were elected from the community. Also, the time. I know some groups who have taken four years to get a building permit in a local community. I know of ski lodges that have been working for ten to 15 years to get a permit, and that had nothing to do with aboriginal concerns. So I'm not surprised when they say in that context that we've accomplished a lot. There are 41 bands that are coming close to halfway through the process. But we are in a position where we want to take a new look and say: "With the lessons that we've learned so far, how do we go from here?"

You can stress to us all the way through that we need clear, concise questions that are easily understood. I can't think of a better person to ask than an English teacher to help us with those clear, concise expressions. The English language is full of persons with very succinct English who put across very important messages. So if you, out of your professional background, can help us to do that, it would be greatly appreciated.

R. Visser: Have you ever lived in an area where treaty negotiations have been going on?

R. Visser: Have you read the 19 principles that currently guide the province in treaty-making?

O. Mott: No. As I say, I'm coming from some ignorance. Where would I find those?

R. Visser: They'd be on our website currently, so you can get it on the way out.

R. Visser: One of the things that has happened for a lot of people in this province is a sense that we've lost touch with what those principles are, or we may not have ever known. So it is our belief that a referendum, exercising the one thing that our culture sees as one aspect of democracy that we all take very seriously, is a great way to energize people and to get them to understand what our principles are, what they can and should be. It will give us clear guidance, both for the provincial negotiators and for the first nations at the table, on what we should discuss. I think it's a valuable tool and will be incredibly positive for a lot of them, especially in those communities where negotiations are ongoing and seem to disappear from public radar screens. Then when they are done, everybody reacts badly to them. What we're trying to do is set out in front so that we don't have bad adverse reactions to something that has to be done. We have no choice but to negotiate treaties.

O. Mott: It's a good thing, but I'd like to ask: where is the native voice on your commission? It's not there.

J. Les (Chair): That's readily answered. This is a standing committee of the Legislature.

J. Les (Chair): So it is only members of the Legislature from whom the membership of this commission can be drawn.

O. Mott: But it could be seen as just another white structure which is alien to a native point of view.

R. Visser: That's the great challenge of treaty negotiations: to bring those two structures together to form treaties.

D. MacKay: Oliver, just to expand slightly on what Rod spoke about. I looked up the definition of democracy in the dictionary. If I remember correctly, I think it said that it was the rule of government by the majority with tolerance and compassion for the minorities. To me, that's the type of government we live under.

I don't know how else we can include the majority of the people of the province of British Columbia if we don't have a referendum, because the past process has not worked. Nisga'a didn't work because the people were excluded from it. With the task that we've been assigned to include the majority, the rest of the people are finally going to be given an opportunity to have some say on the principles. That falls under democracy. When you look at it from that perspective, I think we do have to include the rest of the people of the province.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions? If not, I want to thank you for coming this afternoon. Do pick up some information at the back table on your way out, have a look at our website, and feel free to contribute further via the Internet, if you would like, or by mail — in whatever way.

B. Bacon: Good afternoon. I didn't really prepare anything. This came on suddenly. Thank you for the opportunity to say a few things.

I've heard this on the radio: the majority is going to overrule the minority. If you look at what's going on in the world right now, that's exactly what we're trying to do. The rule of the majority, not the minority ruling the majority — that's what we're trying to fight right now all over the world. Keep that in mind. The majority should rule if we're going to live in a democracy. Otherwise, give everything to the minority, and then we'll be ruled by the minority. I don't think that's what we want, and that's exactly what the world's fighting right now.

I concur with Ron on his submission that the whole process is unconstitutional. It's a federal jurisdiction, and it should remain that way. However, for a referendum, I think it would be finality if we can go ahead and get these people worked into society. They're working and living with us now in society. Why should we have this treaty and reserve system? The States outlawed that or did away with it way back in the twenties, I believe. Why shouldn't we get into the modern age and allow these people into our society and let them work and be like the rest of Canadians? It would be a heck of a lot simpler and cheaper, and it would reward them with respect and whatever else goes with it. I think that's the best way to solve this.

Word the referendum the proper way, so it doesn't offend too many people and it's clear and concise. We don't want a referendum like the last Quebec referendum, where it was mishmashed and people didn't understand it. There were too many wrong votes, so they discarded a bunch of votes. We don't need anything like that. It should be clear and concise: "Do you want these people to live in society like the rest of Canadians, disbanding all reserves and treaties?" I think that'd be the best way to handle that. Word the question in that manner — or more eloquently; it doesn't matter. Maybe Oliver could rewrite that. That's about all I'd like to say.

E. Freeman: Good afternoon. I didn't realize I'd have the opportunity to present, but I've written a few short notes.

I'm in the social work field. One of my big concerns was how to ensure that we incorporate the world-view of aboriginal nations within the treaty process. That would include, perhaps, a question pertaining to the self-government issue. I'm considering the original intent of treaties, the fiduciary responsibility and the liaison with the federal government and how you would fit into that part of the process.

One of the aspects I'm concerned with is to level that economic playing field and to take historical context into play. I think the speaker before the previous speaker alluded to some of this, the educational component, regarding the responsibility we have towards levelling the economic playing field. That's my main concern in the treaty process: that first nations people have not had the opportunity to incorporate, within their education, ways of maintaining a sustainable economic platform and have relied on mainstream culture and society to help support and augment their liveli-

hoods. Sustainability in forming a good economic development program should be part of the treaty process, I believe.

V. Anderson: Thanks, Ernie, for coming. You mentioned fiduciary responsibility which the federal government undertook. I say "undertook" because I don't think the aboriginal people expected to be in that fiduciary relationship. In other words, their independence was removed, and they became the responsibility of the federal government. It seems to me that what they're trying to do in treaty is get out from underneath the fiduciary relationship. Have you any comment on that? You raised it right at the beginning. To me, that principle is very important, as well as the economic sustainability. How do they get out of it in order to…?

Let me put it this way. When my daughters move away from home so that they can become independent of my decision-making, in the process of their moving, it's my responsibility to make sure they have enough to survive on as they get on their own feet. How do we help the aboriginal people to get out from under the process in which we have held them for so many years?

E. Freeman: I think this is where you need a strong aboriginal voice in order to bring the other world-view into this. I think you're not going to find either fully, like a dichotomy of totally transferring the economic model, a Eurocentric model, into a first nations culture. What we — I mean mainstream society — need to understand is that there's good from both sides of the world and to have that voice so that we can…. I think we're learning from both sides of the culture how to combine that. The sustainable economic part is equally valid to both cultures. In order to do that process, I think we need to establish what I would call a good infrastructure. There will have to be some upfront dollars, I believe, to help establish good accounting and economic systems and a good, strong educational approach. That's the way I'm coming at it: to provide training but within a framework that will represent first nations world-views as well. I think we can help each other.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Ernie, for your presentation. You've raised a couple of things that I haven't heard previously. The notion of sustainability is certainly important when we look at treaties in other jurisdictions — treaties that have, at least at times, not led to the kind of long-term stability and economic opportunity for first nations that we hope to see here in British Columbia. I think that's something we have to put our minds to. Perhaps sustainability is a principle. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a principle. In any event, I like the notion; I like that thought. Have you given any thought to a question that might address your concerns in and around sustainability of an economic nature over the long term?

E. Freeman:. Well, in the north, at least in my view, we quite often operate from a periphery-centre model of economics. Quite often the first nation communities are out where the natural resources are. I would like to see some of the economics that's leaving the communities actually come back to it so that the first nations people can develop an infrastructure that's sustainable. Instead of providing tools — I was going to say where the economy is destroyed, like clear-cutting and all that — they develop strong practices so that with forestry, say, there'll be a constant growth as well as constant product coming out of the periphery area, and there'll be economic input coming back to strengthen those communities.

M. Hunter: Ernie, thank you. I just want to pursue your economic angle as well. My background was in the seafood industry in British Columbia before I took on this responsibility. The model that existed in coastal British Columbia was a somewhat different one that what you described. I think we had many aboriginal people — north coast, central coast, Johnstone Strait — that were an integral part of a successful business for more than half a century, and I think the federal model over the last ten years has been partly, if not totally, responsible for diminishing that economic success.

I'm trying to put your thoughts together with my experience and devise a question, because that's what we're here for: to devise questions, to try and figure out what the question is. I'd be interested in your thoughts, because you obviously have given some consideration to this. Is the model we should be looking for one where people move to opportunities, or is it one where we expect economic opportunities to occur where people live? To me, that's the kind of range of options we have. Do you have any thoughts about how we address this economic angle in a question?

E. Freeman: Yes, I think so. I think we need to change our paradigm or our mindset and think out of the box. By that I mean we should not depend on just traditional primary industries. One view I'm thinking of is tourism, which is a strong component for the north. We have a beautiful country up here, and I think first nations are very connected with the land. I believe that the value and the almost spiritual context can be passed on in a context where people really come to value our resources, in that it's not just a bank to draw from. We have other things. It's a beautiful country. There's gorgeous wildlife. I mean, that's just one aspect I'm thinking of: tourism. I think each first nations community can provide a wide gamut of artistic fronts to the world, which I think is often missing.

M. Hunter: Could I just pursue this? Ernie, one of the thoughts that you're getting into my head is that you…. Let me ask you, rather than put words into your mouth. Are you a person who would view the injection of this intellectual capital training, getting aboriginal people involved…? Do you think that should be part of a treaty process — a training and temporary…? It

shouldn't have to go on forever, I guess. Is that what you think should be a way of getting at this economic sustainability feature that you talked to us about?

M. Hunter: So you would be prepared to think about the question in a referendum as a principle for negotiation, that the people of British Columbia would see some interim measures — I shouldn't use that term because it has a special relevance in treaty-making — or interim procedures that would assist aboriginal people to be trained in areas that would lead to economic…

J. Les (Chair): Now that you two have got that agreed, let me just shatter the notion a little bit, because these things are never as easy as they might seem.

J. Les (Chair): If a native person from the Fort St. John area wants to become president of the Royal Bank of Canada — and that may well happen one day; I know a vice-president of the Bank of Montreal who's a Mohawk Indian — and if you have treaties tied to the land, a significant portion of the treaty entitlements of that person is going to rely on or flow from that person remaining in that area to fully exercise their treaty rights. So can you see how treaty-making can somehow and sometimes be a limiting factor as well? I'm not saying we shouldn't make treaties; we should. But I think we have to think very broadly, as somebody mentioned a little while ago, outside of the box. I think we have to be careful that treaty-making does not become a brake or a limiting factor on the future of aboriginal people. Many of them have the same hopes and aspirations that you and I do. We need to make sure that on the one hand, we're not saying to them, "Here's your treaty," and on the other hand, down the road we've really said: "Yeah, we've given you a treaty, but you can't really exercise those treaty rights if you want to pursue a particular role in life." I'm probably not explaining it very well, but I just wanted to convey the notion as much as the specific example.

E. Freeman: Yes. I think you're coming from the urban aboriginal perspective as well — identity.

E. Freeman: Yes. I realize it's a complex field. The constitution addresses that whole identity issue as well — Indian, Métis and so forth. I don't have an easy answer, no. On the other hand, I still think we have to address some of the inequality as far as the economics. At the moment I see that as a good starting point for dialogue.

J. Les (Chair): Let me say this. I think that the economic opportunities have to be explored vigorously. There's been a lack of economic opportunity, for whatever reason, amongst the aboriginal people. That has certainly been very damaging to their prospects in life — no question. In the short term if we can address, at least in part, the economic opportunities, that will lead to so many opportunities, including treaty-making itself, that flow from that.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you for coming, Ernie. I appreciate very much your taking the time.

B. Ruddell: I'm Brian Ruddell, and I'm a 40-year resident of Fort St. John. I have in the past been a world traveller. I've had the very fortunate opportunity to observe a number of different cultures and ethnic groups around the world. One striking commonality is the very distinct class differentiation all over the world. This, I believe, lies in the root of our need to better settle this issue before us today — all in due time and due course, my friends.

I do welcome this new provincial government and all of you as its representatives. May I wish you good luck and good government. I must caution you in this process. I recognize the government's need to keep its campaign promises. The tax reduction plan and the 90-day plan are all prime examples. However, this issue has the unique potential of costing the provincial and/or the federal government huge amounts of money.

Given the fiscal restraints already announced by this government, I cannot see this issue being fully realized until such time as this provincial government can afford to do so. That should not be next year. The cost of lost government services to the majority population base of this province is simply too high a price to pay up front. Let the province live within its means until it can afford to get into this issue further.

There are a considerable number of extremists involved in this issue. I am not one of them. There have been native claims for the entire province of B.C. and most of western Canada. This is not reality at all. I have traced my genealogical roots to Manitoba, Ontario, Ireland, England and France, to the 1700s. I would not get anywhere in asking for my traditional lands being returned to me now.

This issue remains alive in this province by virtue of the fact that there are considerable unsettled lands available for consideration. The democratic guiding principles of population representation still need to apply to keep this issue in its proper perspective. The native groups' willingness to continue their traditional ways of life and their individual native choices to fully integrate into Canadian culture and society are other guiding principles that you need to consider for your referendum question. This brings the per-capita native issue into proper perspective.

The issue of compensation remains a very delicate one. This is why I insist that this issue be viewed in its proper perspective. We need only look at the native-church compensation issues to see how out of hand it can get. The resource issue is also quite delicate. However, it can be quite useful as well.

There are two local native issues that I would like to touch on. The recent H2S problem experienced by some reserves is a totally preventable problem, from my perspective. I've worked in the oil and gas industry for ten full years and have been closely associated with the oil and gas industry all of my life. I have researched this issue while making presentations to our city council in their deliberations about H2S wells close to our city limits. I have come to the proper conclusion that industry and government can and should correct this problem as soon as possible. I have developed solutions for it. That information could be for a different government panel.

Another local issue is the need for a proper homeless shelter and detox facility in Fort St. John. Knowing that some of your members are also on the Finance committee that recently held meetings in Dawson Creek, I would like to add my request for this $1.2 million facility as soon as possible. I was not able to get to that meeting, which is why I'm putting it in here.

B. Ruddell: I've got his attention now. One of my objectives has been reached.

B. Ruddell: I know you are looking for ways to word your referendum. That will come once you develop the core values and principles being expressed to you in this process, some of which I've espoused already here. In the Bible it says that he that planteth and he that soweth are one, and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. You can be successful in this issue if you truly listen to what is being said in its proper context.

Government financing is an important context. Another biblical quote is: "Every man's work shall be made manifest…. He shall receive a reward" — First Corinthians, 13 and 14. Now, this reward I am still waiting for. I have worked hard all my life to support me and my family, as should everyone. However, I was injured on a job, and I have had an insidious injury that not many people are capable of seeing. But by definition of the word, the injury is acting maliciously against me, no matter who may try to erroneously say otherwise.

I am still waiting for WCB to clean up its act and serve me and my children properly. For that matter, the judicial system in this province is equally in need of improvement. This is why I'm here to caution you people. I waited seven years for the last government to correct these provincial inequities. I do not have any will or patience to wait another seven years for this government to get around to correcting these gross inequities that do indeed touch the entire population base of this province.

If this government has already set aside moneys for this issue's resolution before its other major responsibilities to me and mine are met, I will indeed be an unhappy camper. My children and I simply do not deserve that kind of treatment. Yes, they do have native blood in their veins. Everything is relative in this world. This is my perspective. I trust that you and your government will serve me and mine as you should. The Bible is not wrong. Good luck.

V. Anderson: You've brought up some issues that need to be considered. You're suggesting some priorities. Within your own community there are many within the aboriginal as well as the non-aboriginal communities who have similar priorities to your own and who are fighting the same obstacles.

Our mandate, for the moment — and recognizing yours — is to settle the relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals for the benefit of us all and to develop a way whereby we can work together on doing that. Our particular process is to find a way of describing, in principles that we might all agree on, how we might move ahead. Can you suggest, from your vantage point, what those principles might be or how we might word them?

B. Ruddell: From my perspective we've got two initiatives that have to go forward: basic government services and your mandate here. I don't want to see one cut out from the other. But on the other end of the scale, they both flow into the same thing in that they're compatible services to both groups.

With respect to the native needs, I see that their traditional way of life and their desire to maintain it is very commendable, and I find nothing wrong with that. However, you must recognize that on a per-capita basis in the native population, there's only room for so many to live that way of life. And they can, given the fact that B.C. has the unique opportunity of having much land available on which to live that way of life, versus the rest of the country that's predominantly populated. So that can still be achieved for some of the native population. However, for the rest of the native population, like your banking friend who's either peripherally or totally involved with urban anarchy, that

becomes another assimilating question. That can be done successfully on the common ground of it being done equally under the Canadian Charter. If you give the native groups free access to everything under the sun, then the non-native groups should have that access as well.

During my upbringing the native population had free university, whereas we had to go out and work if we wanted to go to university. There's a discrepancy there. If you give everyone the same opportunity, then there won't be the resentment involved. As long as the total population has the same benefits of integration as the natives do, then you're on a non-confrontational road.

V. Anderson: I thank you for that. One of the big discussions we've had all the way along has been brought up: the word "equality." You have defined that a little more precisely by saying "equal access." That, to me, is a very significant expression of that and very helpful. As a question, "Should everybody have equal access?" is a little more precise, and I'm a little more able to deal with that. I'd like to thank you for that. That sets us in a direction which, I think, will be very helpful.

B. Lekstrom: A question and a hypothetical one. This isn't a process where we're out saying: "Should we or shouldn't we?" We've spoken on that most of the day — about our constitutional requirements. If there's going to be land, there's going to be money, I would suspect, at the end of the day when the settlements are reached. The question I would throw to you is: what is your view on the issue, and what would you see as far as cash settlements? Should they go ahead? What is your preference or your view on whether those cash settlements should be to the band as a whole or to individuals? Which would be better, in your mind?

B. Ruddell: I'm walking the plank here. The land issue is probably the easiest one that can be settled, in my mind, given the native cultural needs and given a numerical population base identifiable for government's purposes. The compensation issue is very delicate, and I don't want to go too far out on a limb on this, to be honest with you, because it might kick me in the butt somewhere down the road.

Compensation for the purpose of finality, which there won't be in my definition, is a consideration. The reality is that governments will have to re-examine the situation on an intermittent basis throughout history. Whether the native population should continue to grow within its own communities is one scenario, and whether they should integrate into the rest of the population base is the other scenario. I would have to stick with my equal-access comments to this gentleman hereon that basis and recognize that that would be a regulatory field you may want to get into. In the native community-building process itself, there is some room for equalization incomes in their communities, where they're not available at the moment.

What I'm thinking is that there are limited hunting and fishing availabilities, from which some people can make decent livings to Canadian average income standards. There would be opportunities for tourism, fishing, lumber and other resource bases, be they mining or oil and gas. Those areas are developable to the point of treaty people on those lands flowing into the Canadian mainstream average income base — or better, as is the case with our own people.

We all have the ability to succeed from minimum to maximum earnings potential, and that should also be the case for the native groups, be it in mainstream Canadian society or in their own native cultural society. There's room to play with resources to get them up to the average, which I would think is a minimal objective in any process in treaty negotiations from that perspective. You can word it to that effect.

As long as the other people choose to live outside of the reserve, native land scenario, they don't have a really solid claim to income differential help unless they are, let's say, significantly underutilized. In that case, there's room for regular government programs — as there is with the mainstream society, with unemployment insurance benefits and other programs of that nature — which can all be rolled into one for all.

At this point I don't have any other speakers who have indicated they wish to make a presentation to the committee. Is there anyone in the audience at the moment that would like to make a presentation? Seeing no one, what I would suggest is that we recess until 4 o'clock to see if anyone else appears by that time. We'll recess until 4 o'clock.

J. Les (Chair): It is now 4 o'clock. I'm not aware of anyone else who has come forward and wishes to address the committee. At this point I will adjourn the hearing, and we will meet again next week on Wednesday in Williams Lake.

Committee Staff:	Tamara Little (Consultant)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS