Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 8 - Wednesday, October 10, 2001

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

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

Unavoidably Absent: Blair Lekstrom, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 1:09 p.m.

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

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    1) Simon Moses
    2) Arnie Jack
    3) Cariboo Tribal Council:
        Bernie Elkins

4. The Committee recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 3:22 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    4) Soda Creek Band:
        Chief Dorothy Phillips
    5) Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association:
        Gord Rattray
    6) Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources:
        Bee Hooker
    7) Cariboo Regional District:
        Ted Armstrong
    8) Rev. Juanita Austin
    9) Thomas Phillips
    10) Bill Carruthers

6. The Committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 7:29 p.m.

7. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 7:30 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		205
	S. Moses	205
	A. Jack	211
	B. Elkins	214
	D. Phillips	217
	G. Rattray	218
	B. Hooker	221
	T. Armstrong	224
	J. Austin	224
	T. Phillips	226
	B. Carruthers	226

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:	Ted Armstrong (Cariboo Regional District) Rev. Juanita Austin Bill Carruthers Bernie Elkins Bee Hooker (Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources) Arnie Jack Simon Moses Chief Dorothy Phillips (Soda Creek Band) Thomas Phillips Gord Rattray (Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association)

J. Les (Chair): I would like to call this afternoon's hearing to order. My name is John Les. I'm the Chair of the committee and the MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas. This is the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

I'll just make a few comments about the committee itself and the work that it has been asked to do by the Legislative Assembly. The committee was established in late August by the Legislature, and it was asked to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions that the government of British Columbia should submit to voters to implement the government's commitment to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum, while ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title are respected.

Copies of the committee's terms of reference and other information about the legislative committee process are also available at the information table in the room to my left.

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

As I said, we will be holding hearings throughout British Columbia, and the finalized itinerary has been established on our website. The hearings are being recorded, and they will be transcribed by Hansard staff. The transcripts will be available on the website, and the website address is www.leg.bc.ca. Following these public hearings the committee will prepare a report of its observations and recommendations, and 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 table or deposited.

I will now ask the committee members to introduce themselves to the audience, starting with Dennis MacKay.

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

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

D. Chutter: I'm Dave Chutter, Yale-Lillooet, and I live just outside of Merritt.

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

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Hi. My name is Paul Nettleton. I'm the MLA for Prince George–Omineca, and I live in Fort St. James.

G. Trumper: Good afternoon. I'm Gillian Trumper, and I'm the MLA for the Alberni-Qualicum riding, which is on central Vancouver Island. I live in Port Alberni.

V. Anderson: I'm Val Anderson. I'm the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, which is the south part of Vancouver when you come in over the Oak Street Bridge. Thank you for your nice fresh snow last night.

J. Les (Chair): To my left is Kate Ryan-Lloyd. She is the Clerk to the Committee, and at the information table in the back is Tamara Little, who is a consultant to the committee.

I have four people who have registered previously to make a presentation to the committee starting at 3 o'clock, which means we don't have anyone scheduled at this particular point in time, but I do see some people who are in attendance. Does anyone wish to make a presentation at this point in time? If you'd like to do that, now would be your opportunity. Otherwise we will simply recess until 3 o'clock or until someone else shows up who would like to make an unscheduled presentation to the committee.

S. Moses: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and standing committee members. My name is Simon Moses. I live in the city of Williams Lake. Do you require an address?

J. Les (Chair): Just give it to Tamara at the back table when you're done. That would be great.

S. Moses: I am a status Indian originally born in the Nicola Valley area, Mr. Chutter. My father knows his father, so we're kind of neighbours. It's good to see leaders from the Nicola Valley here. There's my PR; now I'll get to business.

Just two weeks ago there was another standing committee in the Williams Lake area talking about budgets and financing. I'd like to pick up from there and reiterate, because I honestly believe the treaty principles are going to deal with some issues regarding people-capacity, people-building and those areas.

I'd like to mention, before I carry on, not being from the Cariboo, not being from the northern Shuswap territory…. This is northern Shuswap Indian band terri

tory. I'm not from here. I'd like to acknowledge that. I did ask if I could speak, and it was okay. When I speak I will be speaking only on my own behalf. I'm not representing any bands from this area.

Being a status Indian who lives in the general mainstream, I consider myself very, very fortunate that I am self-employed. My wife is working full-time at the local college campus here in Williams Lake, and my son, who is 21 years old, is attending full-time education at the University College of the Cariboo campus here in Williams Lake.

I attribute our social and economic health to our education. That's where I'd like to go regarding people capacity-building. Science, automation and technology are moving in the global market at such a rapid pace. I and my friends, colleagues and associates are really concerned about just catching up in the world market. We have a lot of concerns regarding building people capacity.

I work in a service sectoral area. I do consulting work in small business and economic development. I've been doing a lot of reading about aboriginal persons attempting just to get basic social and economic health — meeting the poverty line. In the history of the Moses family, my family, my mother and father, were born in the Nicola Valley area. With my mother having virtually zero days of formal academic education and my father having four years of elementary school education, it was amazing how my family actually made it though with eight siblings. I have four sisters and three brothers.

It's very amazing. I think it was because of the tenacity, the will to live and the visions and dreams that my mother and father had for their children. I'm one of them. That's the message I would like to give to the standing committee. In light of the global market changing at such a rapid pace, the aboriginal children in my family — and I'm sure it will go for almost all aboriginal families in British Columbia — need tremendous support.

It's a very serious predicament in the global market. People capacity in education for professional careers is falling back at such a rapid pace in aboriginal communities and in my family, the Moses family, that when you discuss principles and discuss progressing in treaty, you mustn't forget one of the most important resources for all British Columbia. That's the people resource.

The aboriginal people, when caught up, will have the ability to partner unilaterally right across the board with all other British Columbians. They will have the capabilities. They will have the knowledge. They will have the skills, and they will be part of the resource sector.

They will be able to manage all the natural resources, including people resources, as well as everyone else in British Columbia, given that they have all the academic education in place right from day care to kindergarten, the elementary public schools and post-secondary. All the training, including literacy, is extremely important for all aboriginal children. When we move ahead and begin to talk about treaties, please remember the people resource.

Secondly, in my interests and in the Moses family interests in the Nicola Valley, the band I'm from has not entered into a treaty process or a contract yet. They will soon. I'm sure we'll be meeting with Mr. Chutter in the next year or two. We do have a lot of concerns regarding the slow pace at which the treaty process is going. I'm sure all British Columbians do.

We're also very aware and very up to date regarding the Canadian constitution, the Charter of Rights and all the law and the court precedent setting regarding aboriginal title and rights. We're very up to date on that. I'd like to remind you of all the court precedents of the Supreme Court — you know, the Sparrow, the Delgamuukw. It's very important to remember those when you talk about principles.

Aboriginal families in the Nicola Valley have never sold, given up or warred their land away. They still have aboriginal title and rights, and even though I'm not originally from the Williams Lake area, I do live here.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Simon. Do you mind a couple of questions?

Many things you've said, particularly around education, I think we can all readily agree with. Education certainly is the key to social advancement and economic advancement as well. You indicated that the Nicola band has not been in treaty negotiations.

What do you see as some of the issues going forward in the treaty-making process that perhaps need to work better and can produce results faster? I guess there's a third aspect to it, seeing that we're going to conduct a provincewide referendum to mandate the province of British Columbia negotiators. What kind of questions should we be asking of British Columbians to help us to achieve that mandate?

S. Moses: A really loaded question. After you finish travelling throughout British Columbia, you will probably get many passionate types of questions. I have one. It's very difficult to word it, Mr. Chair, because it is potentially a very explosive type of question. However, on monitoring and watching 52 aboriginal organizations in British Columbia who are presently in a treaty process, we're very frustrated with the five-stage treaty agreement signed to begin the process of treaty negotiations by the aboriginal organizations, by the provincial government and by the federal government.

Yet there is another set of laws that legally allows the provincial government to sell the same land they're negotiating for. There's another law that permits the provincial government to legally tenure and allow

permits for the cutting and extraction of minerals. How to word that particular question is a very difficult one, because we all want a win-win situation. We don't want to favour one side over another. So it's very difficult. I'm hoping someone will come up with a really good question. That's basically one of the main issues that has tremendous concern to the aboriginal people in my band, the Lower Nicola band, and especially my family.

Now, identifying the problem. How do you word that to address it so that people will have equal representation, and at least it will be a clear question addressing that issue?

J. Les (Chair): Just for clarification, Simon — that issue being the exploitation of natural resources on lands that could be under claim. Do I understand correctly that that is the underlying concern?

S. Moses: Well, in speaking to my family and members of the Lower Nicola Indian band regarding land under negotiations that's legally under the British Columbia law, is that the land that's part of the negotiations? It is Crown land at this time, it is also under the Canadian constitution, and in some of the court cases it is also aboriginal land. So there is a double claim on it, basically. The aboriginal people being the first people here…. Obviously, the Canadian constitution recognizes that. They have aboriginal title and rights, and part of the title and rights is the land and resources.

With the Lower Nicola band not yet entered into treaty negotiations, it will probably request a rewrite of the first statements in the five-stage treaty agreement process. It would rewrite the wording where it says that all private land is not on the table. It would rewrite somewhere to the extent that all Crown land that is not private land right now will be on the table. It would cease all sales. All cutting permits and all tenures of natural resources on that Crown land will not ever be sold until the treaty is agreed on and signed — something to that extent.

That's a very serious concern. I'm sure it's one of the causes of the delays costing a lot of time, resources and energy and, obviously, a lot of emotion. I'm actually quite concerned about it. I'm honestly trying my best to control my emotions, because the Moses family has lived in the Nicola Valley for several hundred years. We've always had access, title and use of the natural resources and use of the land for survival.

How to word it? That would be the greatest concern, the most important issue that I could share with you. Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I really don't have the expertise to word the question in the form of a referendum.

J. Les (Chair): That's fine, as long as we understand the underlying thought that you have there. Let me pursue it just a little more, and then there are other questions too.

I tend to try to be as practical as possible when we anticipate what happens in the treaty process. If you talk about no more tenures granted and no more licences granted over Crown land until the treaty process is complete, we need to understand that that could lead to a significant break in the overall provincial economy, which doesn't do anyone in British Columbia any good. We need to ensure that the economy of the province, which benefits us all, continues to thrive while the treaty process is going on. I am just asking for you to address that one more time, to say how you feel that one reconciles with the other.

S. Moses: In all cases, in a win-lose situation I would say: "Tough, because it's aboriginal land." Obviously, it's not a win-win situation if I say that.

Obviously, aboriginal people have taken a position that this is aboriginal land, but we have no intention of harming the citizens who live within our traditional territories. It's a very serious question or statement we made, because it also concerns our aboriginal leaders that we not establish some kind of treaty principle that locks up all economic development potential.

However, on the other side of the coin, under Statistics Canada, year after year between 60 and 70 percent of our aboriginal people have been socially and economically impoverished. Where's the balance here? Twelve to 14 percent of the general mainstream, who are non-aboriginal — I don't mean that in a negative way; they're Canadians other than first nations — may have trouble with social and economical poverty. But for aboriginal people, Statistics Canada identified 60 to 70 percent who are socially and economically impoverished.

What a loaded question. What a loaded stat. Today, right behind me there's a chief that I worked with for a short period of time. She's a professional social and health worker. It's a never-ending job. It just comes at you in waves.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your very thoughtful presentation. The treaty process is a huge issue. You talk about all the stages. For the last six years I've been the local government representative at treaty negotiations on the Island. I'm well aware of some of the frustration that's gone on, the length of time. First of all, do you see advantages or disadvantages to getting to a final treaty by either doing it all in one package or doing it piece by piece — for instance, settling the land issues first? I mean, there are huge boxes in all this. I don't know how you'd get that to a question on a referendum. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of maybe doing it in segments rather than doing the whole thing and getting the treaty?

S. Moses: Gee, I wish I had a great answer for you. Obviously, the advantage of speeding up treaty negotiations to completion where everyone will accept it is probably the answer to addressing socioeconomic development progress, socioeconomic development health. That's a sweeping answer.

The band I'm from, the Lower Nicola band, may be proposing 320 acres per band member. It may be proposing several million dollars, depending on the formula of need, depending on the social and economic conditions and lifestyles in the Lower Nicola Indian band. I'm not advocating or recommending a formula for any other band. It's just for that particular band.

It's very difficult to develop a formula that'll work for all bands, because the socioeconomic lifestyle and conditions are different from region to region. Our development may be lower in social areas and may be higher in economic areas. It may be higher than Mr. Chutter's area. That was supposed to be a joke. We want to keep some humour in here. We have to have a level.

Putting a formula that'll work for all bands, of course, would be the Shangri-la or the answer that would help to speed up the process and get treaties signed and agreed to by all parties as quickly as possible. I'm afraid it's just not going to work because the development stages are all different from region to region. For example, the west coast — their economic driver is much different than in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The Nicola Valley area's politics are much different than Omineca's. It's much different because of the different lifestyle, the geographics, the population statistics, the Coquihalla Highway. North of Prince George, I would still say, has tremendous opportunity for natural tourism. I forget the term for it — ecotourism. Eco-tourism has tremendous…. From here all the way right to the B.C. borders north of us may be the only areas right now that have different economic opportunities. Having to address aboriginal communities and neighbours to the aboriginal communities and what their socioeconomic and demographic statistics would be in terms of how to negotiate a treaty, it'll be a win-win for everyone. It's very complex.

For the Lower Nicola band, I would settle for 320 acres for myself, 320 for my son, 320 for my wife. I'd be happy with that plus whatever socioeconomic development needs that would be required for my son to complete his education. I would be happy with that, but my neighbour down the Lower Nicola may require substantially more services and cash. The reason for 320 acres — I'm sure you've all read it — is that 120 years ago the provincial government was giving land to settlers in British Columbia to the tune of 320 acres, so we'll settle for that in the Lower Nicola Indian band.

M. Hunter: Thanks, Mr. Moses, for taking the plunge and having the courage to sit at that table and break the ice for us today. I just want to probe a little bit, if I may, on your views of the socioeconomic side. You pointed out some of the statistics with respect to unemployment — the social and economic health of aboriginal communities as a general proposition.

You describe yourself as living in the mainstream, and you talked about catching up to the world market. You're obviously a person who recognizes and is dealing with, in your own way, globalization, as we all have to. But then you talk about land and what happened 120 years ago. One of the issues we've heard about in this committee is the issue of independent settlements that might affect individuals as opposed to the community. How do you, as a private business person, feel about the incentives that we might look to ask in a referendum question? Should we be asking questions about individual versus communal incentives or settlements?

I ask that because of your own obvious business acumen and the way you feel about the way the world's moving. I've said publicly before I got into politics that the last thing I want to see is nineteenth- or twentieth-century solutions in the twenty-first century. I'd be interested in your ideas on those issues.

S. Moses: Not to duck your question, Mr. Hunter, but maybe you missed my point. There are 197 Indian bands in British Columbia, and several of those Indian bands have united their efforts under tribal council. They've approached the treaty as bands affiliated through tribal council registered to negotiate treaty with the provincial and federal governments.

The point I was trying to make regarding the referendum — and we're all talking about that — is that it's very difficult to establish the right wording for a referendum because all the socioeconomic demographics and statistics, lifestyles and conditions are different from region to region. The aboriginal people have different needs because they're all at different development stages. For certain, we all need health and education. That's probably the only area you can tap into that would be addressing a commonality of concern, issue and need right across the province. Asking a principled referendum question in a provincewide referendum is not going to work. Mr. Hunter, I say that as clearly as I can because we're all at different development stages.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Simon, for your presentation, particularly with respect to references on economic and social health. That's a concern throughout the province. It's certainly a concern in Omineca. Prior to politics, I worked as a lawyer with Dene Law Centre out of Fort St. James.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I traveled extensively, sat on the band steps of other remote bands and listened to elders talk about concerns with respect to traplines that were no more and other concerns in and around lands and resources. It's a huge concern, as you know, throughout the province. I think there's been some creative movement with respect to beginning to address some of those concerns — the incremental approach, interim measures and what have you — and looking at ways to allow first nations to share in the use of resources within their traditional territories. In any event, we've got a long ways to go.

Again, I appreciate your presentation. It is just a suggestion, but I would suggest to you that it is possible to refer to principles within a referendum or to talk about principles, for that matter, that transcend regional differences from band to band and from region to region throughout the province.

I know that you're quite modest and so forth, but I think it is possible for someone like yourself to consider what those principles might be, with respect to some of the concerns you've raised, that we might put on a referendum and that, as I suggested, transcend those differences. From those principles we can work towards addressing, at a practical level, some of the regional differences. So that would be my challenge to you. Again, I appreciate your presentation.

S. Moses: May I add some of my thoughts to your challenge? I accept your challenge, but I need six months. And I don't say that with disrespect, sir. I mean six months, which would be moving at a very fast pace. One hundred and ninety-seven bands in this province have established a protocol. Therein is the reason why I asked the Chief sitting behind me if I could come up here and speak, because I'm in her territory.

I would have to go through a protocol process with neighbouring bands before I can even begin that process. Six months would be moving at a very fast pace. Yet at the same time, how many of the bands will agree to even participate when, not being from that area,

I'm talking about their treaty? So with respect to your challenge, I would accept it, although I honestly don't believe I could complete it because of the protocol and the traditional territory from nation to nation to nation. Some bands just will not participate in a treaty until they feel that it's safe and comfortable and that they'll have at least a chance for a win-win.

Mr. Nettleton, I accept your challenge, but I don't know if it's possible to do that. Obviously, I personally don't have the resources to do it either. I don't have the capacity. So I deflect it back, I guess.

V. Anderson: Simon, I really appreciate your sharing. My dad also had a grade 4 education. But I learned from him the most basic principles that I got from anybody, which are the basis by which I live. So his lack of education didn't do me any harm. In many ways it did me a lot of good, because it was a practical, everyday-life kind of experience.

I'm very aware of many people that I visit with across the province — in Vancouver, Victoria and other places — who don't live on aboriginal land at the moment. They're living in cities and in different places. Some of them are status, and some of them are non-status. In working on the treaty, one of the areas that's been raised is: how do we develop treaties that enable those persons to also feel that they've been fully represented and responded to in the lifestyle they've chosen, perhaps out of necessity? Is there a way you can suggest that we might be inclusive rather than exclusive in that?

S. Moses: Again, I have to be very sharp here. Mr. Anderson, at this particular time I believe the aboriginal people are really at a disadvantage because they're negotiating with two governments — the provincial and the federal governments. Provincial government represents the citizens of British Columbia. Federal government represents the citizens of Canada. One aboriginal organization in this area is negotiating with two governments. If we wanted equal representation, maybe we should…. Let's use AFN as an example. Maybe we should get them to sit at the table so we'll have equal members.

The resources the aboriginal people are drawing on are actually dollars that are borrowed from the federal government. The resources the provincial government and the federal government are drawing are tax money from Canadian citizens. Mr. Anderson, it's already a slanted table against the aboriginal people.

The second part. Aboriginal people represent, at the very most, 10 to 11 percent of voting citizens in British Columbia. If the provincial government goes ahead with the one-time provincewide referendum, we already know what the outcome is going to be. It's not going to favour aboriginals. It's not even going to be 50-50. We already know that. It's not right; it's absolutely not right.

D. Chutter: Thanks, Simon, for getting up and speaking so quickly without a lot of advance notice. In your presentation you made reference to win-win solutions. It seems that you want practical and reasonable solutions. Would it be true to say that a principle of yours that you may be looking to in treaty negotiations, a belief that you may hold, is a sharing of the land, sharing of the resources as an ultimate goal at the end of the day?

S. Moses: I'll only speak for myself and for the Lower Nicola band I'm from at this time, because there are 52 treaty agreements in process. The aboriginal people from the Lower Nicola Indian band honestly believe that there could be a very quick agreement regarding the land and resources by using some kind of a formula. The formula would obviously have to be sat over for probably one week, sitting 20 hours a day, to draft up some type of formula. Again, I'm only speaking for myself, the Moses family and the Lower Nicola Indian band. The other 196 Indian bands must choose how they're going to address the treaty in their territories. That must be respected. I won't recommend any other type of negotiations other than from myself, representing my family. I can't, Mr. Chutter. I just can't; it's not right.

You've already set a precedent. You've opened negotiations to 197 bands. It's very fortunate, actually, that the federal and provincial governments have Indian bands who decided to unite their efforts under tribal councils. Can you imagine if you had to do this 197 times?

I would exercise as much fair play when you go to the table and sit for a whole week. Sit with the Lower

Nicola Indian band leaders and thrash out some kind of an agreement. The longer you take, the more money it's going to cost all taxpayers, including aboriginal people. They're going to pay the money back. It's going to be cut right off the compensation.

J. Les (Chair): I guess, Simon, it's fair to say that it helps you appreciate the difficulty of our assignment.

J. Les (Chair): Maybe just one more thought. I'm not sure if I'll end up at a question. It's this whole notion of the referendum. You have talked about how amongst aboriginal people there is a dire need to upgrade education, thereby advancing their social condition. On the non-aboriginal side there is also a need, in my view, to improve their knowledge of the aboriginal people of British Columbia — their history, their traditions, etc. Those two things should probably go forward in parallel.

We perhaps have been overly ambitious in terms of expecting the big bang theory of treaty-making to prevail so that two or three years down the road we'd have treaties everywhere. It's been my experience that as people become more knowledgable about what the issues truly are, they become more understanding and more likely to enter into serious discussions about how to resolve aboriginal treaties. This referendum process plays a part in that, in my view.

We have reiterated many times that this is not about aboriginal rights. First of all, those are set out in the Canadian constitution. Those have been affirmed numerous times in various court cases.

This is fundamentally about: how do we do treaties in this modern era? We're not doing them 150 years ago. Life was much simpler then. When James Douglas started negotiating treaties in British Columbia, I'm sure it didn't take many days until they had a treaty agreed upon, inadequate as those treaties might have been in retrospect. This is a new reality. There are now roughly four million other British Columbians who are non-aboriginal. So it is in that context that modern treaties have to be arrived at.

Although British Columbia has been at the negotiating table for some eight or nine years now under the B.C. Treaty Commission process, I believe it's a fair statement to say that the public of British Columbia is ill-informed about what the issues are. Given the magnitude of the treaty-making exercise, an ill-informed public is a dangerous thing. There needs to be, at the end of the day, that broad-based public support for what government is doing on its behalf on an issue of such major long-term importance.

That is the reason why we have selected the referendum option. Again, I stress one more time: it is not about those inherent aboriginal rights that are recognized in the constitution of this country. I would encourage you, if you could, to look at it in that light. That's what we're about. I recognize that many aboriginal leaders won't quite go there with us, but I certainly want to keep reaching out to all people across British Columbia to be involved in a positive and hopefully productive way.

S. Moses: I disagree with you. It's all about aboriginal title demands. Aboriginal title and rights is not only the land and the resources. It's much more than that. It's about recovering our culture and our language, recovering our knowledge about parenting skills that were lost at Indian residential schools. It's about recovering our ability to make learned decisions and have the best-quality education possible, which was taken away from us until 1961 or '62. It's about our ability to make the best decisions possible in managing a small business, because that wasn't given back to us until about 1954. I am the first generation of the Moses family that's allowed to sign contracts right from birth. My father had to sneak around with somebody else to do a $15 or $20 contract. So I'm at the embryo stage.

Aboriginal title is all about recovering all that back. Those were all taken away by the federal government, the provincial governments, the laws, the policies, the constitution and the Indian Act. It's all about that. Land and resources are the biggest part right now, but all those little parts are extremely important for social and economic health.

Education is probably one of the biggest. Academic education is the foundation of social and economic health. Sorry, John, I'm really getting emotional now. I'm trying to control this.

J. Les (Chair): That's all right. I understand that, and I appreciate the tone in which we're doing this.

There is one further question I'd like to ask. At some point in this process, is some kind of expression of regret on behalf of British Columbians appropriate? If so, where does that most meaningfully happen?

J. Les (Chair): I'm referring to some collective expression by the current non-aboriginal population of British Columbia of regret, or apology if you like, for those unfortunate things that happened in the past, some of which you've referred to this afternoon. Is there is a place for that? Is that a meaningful contribution to this process that is in part, as I see it, a reconciliation process?

S. Moses: I think it has to be part of it somewhere along the line. It's almost a personal issue, and I could be a good example of that because it did happen to me. I attended the Kamloops Indian residential school. There was a tear in my parents' life because they were

told that by law I had to go to residential school or they would be sent to jail. Then 25 to 30 years later, upon doing research, there was no such law. So I lost 11 or 12 years of sibling interaction with my brothers and sisters. I lost those years of lifestyle conditions with my mother and father because somebody told a severe, terrible lie.

How do you reconcile that? You lost something, and no matter how sorry the person was who said that to my mother, I can never get it back. It's mental and emotional, so there's no way. Apologies are accepted, but I now have to deal with it personally. It's a very difficult situation.

That's a good example of one, and the losses of land and resources, etc., are others. The treaty negotiations and the agreement are probably going to be the best ways to reconcile. Along the line there will be issues that are going to be dealt with between provincial, federal and aboriginal. Aboriginal people probably did a lot of wrongs, too, that they're going to have to deal with and be accountable for, as are the provincial and federal governments.

My family and Mr. Chutter's family — fathers and grandfathers — did a lot of work together. They settled that years ago. I can talk to Mr. Chutter, and we can have lunch together. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago I had lunch with his family. I can't remember if you were there or not. We can do that, but it took probably my father or our grandparents to set it up, to reconcile that old issue.

It's going to eventually happen, but I would get on with what's on the table at the moment. The existing 52 treaty agreements, in my opinion — and I'm not an expert in law…. It's a legal contract between the provincial, federal and aboriginal organizations. The referendum could be a question of whether it is legal. Is it interfering with an already established contract agreement? I really went on a tangent.

J. Les (Chair): That's quite all right, Simon. I see there are no further questions, so I'll let you go with our thanks for coming this afternoon and sharing your thoughts with us.

A. Jack: I have a written submission here. All these documents will form the basis of questions.

J. Les (Chair): I'll just pass this around so committee members can look at it. You can leave it with Kate at the end of the day.

A. Jack: Good afternoon. I'd like to welcome you here to the territory of the Secwepemc te Qelmucw this afternoon. My name is Arnie Jack. I'm a member of the Williams Lake Indian band. I've been involved with trying to bring accountability to our community for a number of years now, only to be met with very severe criticism.

One thing the panel should understand is that I've been to the First Nations Summit, I believe, 11 times now, so there shouldn't be any question in anyone's mind as to where all of this information is coming from. I've sat there, I've listened to the summit, and I've made an effort to address these here in the community as well as in the outlying communities with no acknowledgement of the fact that there needs to be some closure on the 74 recommendations that are prevalent in our community.

The way that relates to the treaty process is that according to what I've seen in the treaty process, after these treaties are signed, I believe it's the government's position that they will still have control over our lives via the law of Canada, I guess you could say. If you're so intent on placing parameters on our rights, then we would like…. I shouldn't say "we"; I only speak on behalf of my daughter.

The documents that are placed before you say "the Williams Lake Indian band." I'd like to make it clear from the start that the Williams Lake Indian band does not speak for me. We've been at odds for so long that they will gladly come to the table and say that I do not speak for the community as well. I guess that goes back to your discussion where we agreed to disagree. That principle affects us here, where I disagree with your process because I understand that a treaty should be made between nations.

Nations are the ones that make treaties. These treaties do not make nations. I'd like some clarification of that legal point, because British Columbia did not sit at the negotiating table with NAFTA. Your interests were represented through the federal negotiation team at the NAFTA deal. This is kind of getting off the topic of my question, but I'd also like to know where you get the authority to negotiate treaties or any part of a treaty between any Indian nation and Canada.

It's my submission that your interests should be reflected through the federal Crown. If they are delegating that authority to you, then my submission is that they are breaching their fiduciary responsibility to us under section 91.24 of the British North America Act, commonly called our constitution, where the lands reserved for Indians are not the same as Indian reserves. I believe that's where we have the distinction that you have jurisdiction over those lands.

You assert your jurisdiction over the provincial lands. We need recognition of where you receive that delegated authority from, because if that's where your powers are handed down to us — from section 91.24, under that legal law — then my submission is that the federal government is breaching their fiduciary responsibility. I'm not saying that just to step on you here today. I'm saying that we need to look at it from an international law context. If there are discrepancies within the Canadian law — our version versus your version, the federal Crown version or B.C. Crown version — then I believe this discrepancy in the law needs to be taken to a higher form of law, if you disagree with my submissions. I believe that what is happening under 91.24, if that's where your delegated authority is coming from, is that there is unstructured discretion

coming from the federal government down to the provincial government, which allows them to provide a mandate for the province to be in treaty discussions.

Given all of that, I think that one of the main ways to address the issue of this being a fraudulent process…. The question I have is: will these land settlements include accountability governed by ever-changing Canadian federal law? That's my question in a nutshell, and I would like to see where this accountability is going to factor into treaties. Like I said, it looks like the federal and provincial Crowns are so determined to regulate our rights after treaties that there should be some kind of foresight gone into accountability of the dollars. In Canada right now we have a mainstream projection of unaccountability within our band council systems. It just seems to me to be common sense that you would address this issue of accountability.

It's my understanding that within the current framework agreement, the B.C. Treaty Commission does not decide where the money is spent or who has spent it. The only thing that needs to be accounted for is an auditor's report from the treaty society for one of the 52 tables that are disbursed funds. That's the only kind of accountability right now. If that's reflective of the position the government is going to take in its position regarding treaty negotiations, then I would also have to submit that you are breaching your fiduciary responsibility to the first nation in this specific territory.

I am not advocating for any other treaty group. I'm only saying I'm a part of the Williams Lake Indian band, and we are therefore part of the Cariboo Tribal Council Treaty Society. I'm telling you point blank that there are serious accountability issues within my band. When I go to the RCMP and the Assembly of First Nations and Philip Mayfield, I get no response. "Oh, they're well within the law." But at no time can Constables Bruce Coles and Mike LeSage ever show me in the law where I'm wrong. I asked them to come to the same meetings I go to. They won't do it. The only position they have from the RCMP is that E Division says all of this money spending is okay. I said: "I'm tired of hearing what you have to say. I want to see a hard copy from E Division. I want to see a hard copy from Howard Eaton, who is the head of the aboriginal policing services." None of this accountability is shining through. You can stop me there, I guess.

D. MacKay: Arnie, just to follow up on the accountability portion of your statement there, are you suggesting there is some improper use of moneys advanced for treaty process?

A. Jack: I'm saying that you have no definite dispute resolution mechanism concerning the allotment of these funds. You have nothing in place, regardless of whether there's anything going on. There are no guidelines regarding accountability, other than….

This is a band council resolution from the Williams Lake Indian band. It's No. 97268, and it's dated July 11, 1997: "The constituents of the band have given their approval to the request by the first nations for the loan and contribution fundings for the treaty process." If this money is being lent out, then don't you think you have a responsibility of delegating where these dollars go? There are summaries that are always available to us, but summaries don't always paint the true picture of where the actual expenditures go.

D. MacKay: Well, I would hope that all moneys are accounted for. Just to follow up on that a bit more, you suggested that you had asked the RCMP to look at it.

A. Jack: I'm not specifically talking about the moneys that have been loaned to the band. I'm talking in the context of what you are going to do when your treaties are finally negotiated. They're going to be negotiated on the principles of your submissions to this committee. That's my understanding of what's going on here.

D. MacKay: Well, let me just follow that up. Would you suggest that one of the principles included in the question or questions that we're going to form, which will be put toward a provincewide referendum, should be accountability of moneys?

A Jack: Accountability of first nations governance after the treaty process. Are we going to have accountability to these councils after the process? That's what I'm getting at because, like I said, the federal and the provincial governments seem so intent on delegating rights and authority to us. Then let's have some delegated authority concerning accountability within the band.

Philip Mayfield can verify this quite well, in depth. Larry Wendell — he's RCMP here in Williams Lake — as well as Bob McIntosh can verify that there have been serious allegations of fraud that have gone on in our band, and they refuse to address them.

I'm just saying: what are the principles regarding finalized treaty accountability? If you're not prepared to delegate some kind of accountability to the process, then why should even the mainstream members of British Columbia agree to your fraudulent process? That is what I'm saying.

A Jack: In my understanding, you're asking me if there should be principles regarding the million-dollar loan made to my band, and I'm saying that's not the issue. I'm asking: will these treaties that you're going to negotiate be accountable to the people of the first nations that they represent? If that principle of accountability is not established from your committee, then what other recourses for accountability are available to us as individual band members?

On the expenditures that have gone on so far, I'm not going to waste any more of my time trying to figure out where that money went. All I'm saying is that when you make governance issues or if you agree to allow municipal-style governments to come into play with these treaties, then should the provincial government regulate those laws of accountability and governance, or should it be delegated to the federal government? I think that's the question I'm asking. It comes down to a British Columbia level of what we are prepared to submit to the treaty process as an issue of first nations governance accountability.

D. MacKay: All I want to know is: do you feel that accountability should be included in any principles that come out of this process?

A. Jack: Accountability for first nations governments, not only monetary expenditures.

A. Jack: Well, I guess you've identified a weak point in my question, where my submission would be that the accountability be twofold. One would concern governance, and one would concern expenditures.

The expenditures. I can't see the federal and the provincial Crown relinquishing their control over the governance of the expenditures, so in that sense there should be some kind of accountability clause. Specifically, right now it's section 69 (1) of the Indian Act. As it is right now, if we do submit claim to revenue expenditures, those expenditures have to fall in line with the federal Financial Administration Act. I'm telling you right now that that is not being done. I'm telling you right now that the police in this town — Wendy Grant-John from DIA and John Watson — refused to look at those 74 recommendations that I gave you. As a gesture for the floor here, those recommendations were also given to the floor, so they know the accountability issues that I'm presenting to you.

V. Anderson: I understand your comment. You're asking that in the final analysis, whatever government, in whatever form it took, would have the same kind of responsibilities as the civil governments have at the moment, where their books are made available and open to every citizen. The minutes of their meetings, except for personnel questions, are open to the public. That's the open and accountable public presentation that you expect to be part of the process, whatever it is at the end.

A. Jack: That's correct. But at the same time, accountability is a twofold issue. One is a monetary issue, and one is governance. My understanding is that there was a document in December 1997 that came from INAC on a first nations accountability workbook. It was a joke, the way my band filled it out. It was an honest-to-God joke. I can bring it here. I've got a copy of it.

All of these 8,000 pages, once they're scanned, are going on the Internet. Then there'll be a proper submission to your committee, perhaps, with all of the documents. In a nutshell, in the time line I was faced with here, all I could do today — I'm sorry — was bring you only 30 different documents that relate to accountability within our band here. I wish I could have brought you all 8,000 pages, but that's simply not within my resources at this point.

D. MacKay: Arnie, would you agree that the accountability of governance is called an election?

A. Jack: I would disagree. One of the questions for an Indian Act band council election is: who do you vote for? Nowhere in that question does it say that they're allowed to spend the money of my band once they are the Chief. Chief Nancy Sandy has stated time and time again: "Oh, I'm allowed to spend that money because you voted for me." Nowhere in the Indian Act does it say that, so I'm saying that these broad interpretations of accountability can't be reflected in a new and revised process without some flak coming down on you. You've been forewarned, as late as today, to address these accountability issues with first nations governance and not just first nations people with their governance.

I think it starts with the government taking a position on accountability, because there seems to have been a lot of talk about accountability going on in the last two years, since Leona Freed and the First Nations Accountability Coalition started. But there have been no real, solid, on-the-ground activities indicating that the government, the Crown in right of Canada and the Crown in right of British Columbia are making any effort to address these very serious accountability issues.

J. Les (Chair): Anybody else? Thank you, Arnie, for your presentation this afternoon. I'm sure you're aware that any of the specific allegations that you've mentioned….

A. Jack: They told me to go to the AFN, so I took it to Phil Fontaine. And Phil Fontaine said to take it to the RCMP.

J. Les (Chair): All I simply wanted to say, Arnie, is that the committee obviously can take no position on those issues.

A. Jack: But the principles of your treaty negotiations can reflect accountability in both governance and monetary terms.

J. Les (Chair): That we can do. We've heard that this afternoon, and we thank you for that. But I reiterate that we can take no position on any of the specifics in terms of what is or is not going on within the Williams Lake band.

I have no one else wishing to speak until 3 o'clock, unless there's someone in the audience that wishes to speak now. Yes, sir.

B. Elkins: Hello. My name is Bernie Elkins. I work at Cariboo tribal council.

J. Les (Chair): All right. You were scheduled for 3 o'clock, but we're happy to take you now.

B. Elkins: I just want to respond. I wasn't here earlier, and I apologize. There were some allegations going around. There was a recent letter that I had sent to the Sugar Cane or Williams Lake band regarding the stage 3 to 4 voting. In that letter there are some dates thrown around, and I think there was a mistake. I want to say that we will look into it, we will clarify it, but I know we would not have got a BCR from the band council unless the voting was proper.

In terms of accountability for any finances, we have our statements audited, and they're shown to the community. If they want to go back and look at the books, that's fine.

In terms of loan dollars. I think the concern of our members is that we're spending a lot of money and not seeing a lot of benefits, and I just want to table that. Recently the treaty commission has suggested that the loan money be turned into grant. Another option is that negotiating money is added on to the final settlement. Whatever it may be, that's the way we'll go. I haven't seen a lot of options other than treaty at this time.

If you will allow me, I'll go into my presentation. As you know, we're in stage 4 of the six-stage process. We're getting into the meat and potatoes of the agreement. I thank you for listening to our concerns. On September 11 a lot of things touched our hearts — family and friends, people who donated blood and food for the victims. Recently we had Thanksgiving, and we have a lot to be thankful for here. In my presentation I'll talk about respect, title, and the negotiations and outcomes of settlements.

Respect. Traditionally, our children were not allowed to play when visiting other people. They had to sit. There were rules to follow as a visitor and the NStQ are not visitors to this land. All parties agree that there is Crown title and aboriginal title, and that there's a burden since the Delgamuukw case. Any development in our territory is to deal in good faith with both of those without extinguishment.

What I'm wondering is how a referendum will be instructive to negotiations. The Liberal government won on the platform of speeding up negotiations. Our experience is the opposite, and uncertainty is mounting. We have invested over $5.9 million since we began treaty in 1994. The majority of people in B.C. know little of Secwepemc historical contributions in building Canada and should not determine our rights by a vote.

Further, uncertainty for business. The Nisga'a were dishonoured at the eleventh hour. A worst-case scenario for us is that we would join other non-treaty bands and look to courts. Some of these settlements may be in excess of the 8 percent that Nisga'a got. I have yet to see any bands go to court and have a full title case.

Through the Internet I've looked at several court cases involving businesses. I'm not going to read them all out, but I'll take a couple: Skeetchestn, regarding B.C. resort development and wildlife and sacred site protection, a settlement without extinguishment; and Blueberry, involving mineral rights, a breach of duty over our veterans' lands. I want to point out that CTC and the NStQ were one of the two first nations that gave money for that court case many years ago. That was tri-nations, being Carrier, Chilcotin and Shuswap. Another case was in Malaysia — in Sarawak, on Borneo. The court upheld Borneo Paper and Pulp that they did not have a right to infringe on Iban customary rights.

These and many other legal rulings state that we have language; we're distinct; we're changing the legal landscape; we have territorial domain, where customary rights to land were created by our elders; we practise those traditional rights today, which are not necessarily in written form. They consistently conclude that legislation has not extinguished our rights on the land. Customary land rights have expanded to rivers, streams and communal forests.

Although the governments may attempt to enact legislation to extinguish our rights, one thing is clear. We do have inherent rights, and some people here in B.C. just don't get it. Consequently, a yes/no referendum on a 300-page Nisga'a agreement or any similar agreements will throw us back in time.

Patrick Macklem, law professor and constitutional expert, states that it is the history of referendums to be divisive and offer no room for compromise or consensus. Our feeling is that B.C. is changing the rules and setting aside negotiations on comanagement, fiscal relations and governance — governance in the sense of municipal-style only. Further results of a vote may

force B.C. to be on the sidelines while negotiations continue and may affect them.

Aboriginal title and our negotiations today. There are more assaults on our ownership of the land than ever before in history, and we are seeking benefits on the ground today: (1) protection of sacred sites; (2) capacity-building, economic development to assume legislative, judicial and corporate duties; (3) forest, wildlife and fish comanagement; (4) communications with our neighbours in 100 Mile, Quesnel and even Cariboo lumber manufacturing, as planned here, in the future.

The B.C. Treaty Commission has put out the report, as you know, and has said that land claims are complex and taking longer than any of the parties thought. Some of the main reasons are that Delgamuukw has sent everybody back to the drawing board; elections both federal and provincial; and the reference case regarding self-government of the Nisga'a treaty. They're all sidetracking negotiations. Plus, the negotiators are overloaded, and momentum is lost with long stretches between meetings. High turnover of negotiators — we've see that quite often. Then we have to rebuild trust and re-educate.

BCTC is the keeper of the process and also disagrees with the referendum. As I mentioned earlier, it also suggests that loans be turned into grants, and we agree. B.C. Treaty and those bands that are in treaty have spent $1.5 billion here in B.C. That's for B.C. goods and services.

I agree with moving away from the big bang theory of trying to do everything at once. The Nisga'a treaty took about 23 years, and settling claims will cause a ripple effect. That's our feeling. We can do some things now. Compensation, fiscal relations and protection measures can be renegotiated at higher common table talks, rather than here locally.

Finally, healing through our dreams. The question is not whether or not aboriginal claims will succeed but by how much. It'd be a crime in this world of intense competition and scarce resources if doing nothing different prevailed. Ultimately, do you want us in court or in business?

First, we are asserting our ownership throughout the territory. We've held economic slowdowns at Xatl'tem, or Canoe band; and T'exelc, or Williams Lake band, and have worked with our neighbours, the Ts'ilhqot'in, or Chilcotin, on military block 7741. We've also had camp-outs on Crown land this summer.

Secondly, Three Corners Health and Knucwentwecw Society are examples of our independence. Thirdly, CTC has completed phase 1 of the restructuring. This will help with our long-term economic development approach, rather than just depending on transfer payments. Fourth, NStQ is asking for $625,000 for new investment in Canada and B.C. — 225,000 cubic metres of timber for 37 new jobs. A lot of people are pulling wood out of this area, and we don't get to see much of that.

Finally, we've completed an economic study. It's asking for $500,000 startup funds for three years to develop value-added wood products, tourism and ranching. We're searching for land to reinvest in our band economies. A national tribunal of first nations financial authorities is expected to borrow $10 million next year and $1 billion by 2012. We want to get away from the purse strings of Ottawa. However, when we get into economic development, we realize the capital markets are even tougher.

Tomorrow I see NStQ land as something other than dead capital. Today federal law prohibits the use of reserve land as collateral, since NStQ collectively owns it. Timber, pipelines, property taxes, water, oil, gas and mining rights from settlement lands will be used as collateral. We will have some fee simple title to offer to any on- and off-reserve members, as well as the public, for business ventures.

A couple stats. Baby-boomers are aging. By 2008 it's estimated that one-third of the aboriginal population will be 19 years or younger. We would see a 1.2 percent boost to the gross domestic product — roughly a $7.5 billion windfall, if we were included in the economies. Visionary companies with a diversity dividend: Syncrude, SaskTel, PCL Construction, the Royal Bank, Advanced Thermodynamics, Weyerhaeuser here in Canada. Some other bands in the States: Mississippi Choctaws, White Mountain Apaches, Flathead, Cochiti Pueblo.

How else will we do all this? I'm not saying it can't be done but that we have a plan in place. Respect does not come from a status quo attitude. It comes from incremental steps, face-to-face negotiations and real opportunities in B.C. Together we must work harder to earn tomorrow's success. Otherwise, aboriginals will not be independent of government transfers.

M. Hunter: I enjoyed your presentation. I don't agree with everything you said, but we're not here to debate it. I want to ask you a question, though. You talked about moving away from the big bang theory of negotiations. I want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that in this area, negotiation on compensation, fiscal relations, interim protection measures would be dealt with at a provincewide table? Do I understand you correctly?

B. Elkins: Yeah. I would say that some of the protection measures would be dealt with locally. But the other topics — governance, compensation, all those things — would be handled at the summit or the executive level, because it's a common theme through all the tables.

M. Hunter: Thank you for that clarification. I wanted to be sure I understood. Does that then suggest to you that those subjects might be ones that this committee would look at in trying to dig out the questions of principle that we want to ask British Columbians?

B. Elkins: Obviously, I have to state that through the summit, we disagreed with this process. That's why I'm here to state it. I can't say in terms of the question that you're going to form. It's something worth looking at if it's going to speed things up. However, in terms of voting, we've decided that we'll probably boycott, but we won't really know until we see the question that's going to be formed.

M. Hunter: Thank you for that. Could I just ask another question on the issue? I want to understand because to me this is an important principle that you're outlining, which I haven't seen before. If I'm reading it this way, it's your assertion that at post-treaty it would be your expectation that what is now reserve land might still be owned by a collective — the band or whatever governance instrument is there — but that that land would be subject to fee simple title sale to aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

B. Elkins: We will have both types, collective and fee simple. Some reserves will always be reserves and will probably be collective, but there will be settlement lands which, if the communities decide, we can turn into fee simple for development or sale or whatever.

M. Hunter: Okay. I wanted to understand that, too, and I thank you for that. I appreciate it.

B. Elkins: One thing I forgot to mention is that on the last page is a chart. The reason why I put in the chart was that of $4.9 billion in Canadian government expenditures for Indians, $638 million goes to claims. I put it in there because when you look at that pie, a huge chunk is just on existing transfers to the bands. Very little is spent on economic development at $148 million. What that translates to for the Williams Lake band is $24,000 that we get for economic development. On one hand we hear B.C. and Canada governments trying to give us more services to help transfer or whatever, telling us to be more responsible. In terms of economic development, it's sort of strange why they're doing that. I think that if we put more money into economic development, we'll create independence and be less into the taxpayers' pocket.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. Mike Hunter asked the two questions I wanted to ask you. We certainly haven't seen that appear before, on the fee simple land. Just for a point of clarification, you're not looking at that happening on reserve land?

B. Elkins: I would say it's highly unlikely. Just for the record, I'll state that we disagree with this process, but we'll boycott the vote.

G. Trumper: We thank you for coming, though. It's very important that we hear you.

B. Belsey: Thank you for your presentation. You've obviously spent some time thinking about it, and I do appreciate that. I heard the term "form of governance" and talking about a municipal-style government. I didn't catch whether you supported that or not. Would you help me with that?

B. Elkins: We disagree on strictly municipal style only. Westbank went past that, and we don't want to just say we'll dismiss that one. We want to keep it open until we negotiate through it.

B. Belsey: Municipal style with changes that would provide you with some of the concerns you're looking at.

D. Chutter: Bernie, a few quick points just to clarify. You mentioned that you don't support the referendum idea. At the bottom of your first page you mention that it should not determine rights by a vote. I just want to be clear that the point of the referendum is to deal with principles of negotiation, not aboriginal rights. I just want to make sure that's a clear point.

You also asked how referendums will be instructive to negotiations, and you've mentioned on your second page that "some people just don't get it." For me, one of the values of this process is education of the non-aboriginal and the aboriginal community on the whole treaty negotiation issue. Therefore I believe personally that the referendum is a valuable tool. I think it's demonstrated today by you coming and presenting your submission for my individual educational benefit, for those of us in the audience and for those of us who will read the Hansard transcripts and the media tomorrow. I think it has already played a very valuable role. The only missing component is some of your thoughts on what principles should guide the treaty negotiation process. What are your beliefs or your values? That would be really helpful for us to have, because you've given a fairly thorough submission otherwise.

B. Elkins: First of all, this is one party's approach. The referendum is B.C., and I would say that if anything it should be tripartite. Our feeling is that B.C. has pulled away from the table to go after this referendum. At the end of the day all I think you're going to hear from the public is to speed up settlements. The referenced court case, this referendum approach and all this other kind of stuff are just slowing it down. We're just saying that you can have your referendum if you really want to go down that road, but we're not going to waste too much energy there.

D. Chutter: That would be great. I think there is a date, Mr. Chairman, of November 2…

D. Chutter: …for written submissions, if you're interested in submitting your thoughts and principles.

B. Elkins: I'll look at some of the principles maybe, but this is our submission. Like I said, if you want some serious discussions it should be tripartite, not just a B.C. one. I congratulate B.C. on going around to the communities. We've felt that we've been overtaxing ourselves in negotiating with the public, and we feel it should be more B.C. doing that. I realize the benefits of having open discussions.

V. Anderson: Just referring to your last comment, I appreciate the clarity on the principle that it should be tripartite. There have been discussions and some saying that it should be only federal and aboriginal or should be only provincial and aboriginal or should be individuals. That's at least one principle that you've been clear on, and I appreciate that. That's the kind of thing that's helpful to us.

My other comment would be that in the area in Vancouver where I live, I'm hearing from many people who are living off-reserve and are not status but are certainly aboriginal, other than in the government definition, who have been asking how we undertake treaties that can be inclusive rather than exclusive of all the aboriginal people. Can you give us a principle about how to highlight that?

B. Elkins: We have had meetings with our off-reserve members, but it's fairly hard because in terms of health, they don't come to us for health. They go to government services, so I'm not sure what exactly we can do in that area. The principle, I guess, is that they're going to get some benefit — land, cash — and in discussions down there they even talked about having their own facilities — apartments, businesses and so on — down there. I can't go on any further than that.

V. Anderson: If you're able to think about that and give some…. It seems to me that in the urban areas, we have representatives from all bands and from no bands who are there. I wouldn't see it as helpful, necessarily, to have individual band centres in there, but is there a way that there can be support collectively as part of the process? If we can give some thought to that, I'd appreciate it.

B. Elkins: Okay. One suggestion at the summit was that we could be involved with this educational process too. One way might be to have a televised debate to help clarify the issues with some of the higher people.

Do we have someone else who wishes to make a presentation at this point? I have Dorothy Phillips down for 3:15, but if you wish, we can take a break until 3:15.

A. Jack: I just wanted to show that that's how this is structured, that I'm not allowed to refute any allegations.

J. Les (Chair): Not at all. We're not going to get into that now. We are going to take approximately a half-hour break at this point, so you're free to discuss anything with individual committee members to your heart's content. We'll recess now until 3:15.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, we will resume the meeting. I would remind you again that if you would like to make a presentation to the committee, register with Tamara at the table on my left. That helps us in terms of keeping the meeting as orderly as possible.

The next presenter that I have listed here is Dorothy Phillips from the Cariboo tribal council.

D. Phillips: Good afternoon. I'm Chief Dorothy Phillips from the Soda Creek band. I just wanted to state that my presence here should not be misconstrued as being a consultation process. I speak against the referendum, so I won't be taking any questions after I'm finished. You can send them to me.

I just wanted to use a quote that was made by Grand Chief Ed John: "One of the laws of this country is the law that is enshrined in the constitution that says aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people of Canada are recognized and affirmed." These are not empty words; it is part of the constitution of this country. It is part of the law of this country. The law is very clear that the government is under no legal obligation to hold a referendum. It's a waste of judicial resources and taxpayers' money.

Treaty rights of aboriginal peoples are recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Section 35 imposes on government an obligation to recognize many of the claims aboriginal peoples have been making for years. Governments across Canada have two choices: settle the content of these rights through negotiation, or let the courts determine their content.

B.C. governments have wisely chosen to negotiate with the first nations people, and Soda Creek decided to negotiate. We're in the fourth stage of negotiations. There is no place for a referendum. Our rights are at stake. Bad faith negotiations create uncertainty for our people.

The government in essence is going back on the constitutional promise made, changing the rules of the game when we're in stage 4. We've spent $1.3 million in our community to be in this process. How can we expect fairness in our treaties through a referendum when the majority is non-native? To change ground

rules now, when agreements on ratification have already been made, is bad faith negotiation.

Treaties are about rights, not voters' preference. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly confirmed aboriginal rights and title. Those rights cannot be denied, regardless of the results of the referendum. A treaty is a complex issue which cannot be addressed with yes or no answers. When we entered into the process, certainty was what we were looking for. Now the rules have changed. This certainly does not create certainty for our people.

Fair treaties can only be achieved through hard work and skilled negotiations which provide certainty. That's why our first nations group entered into this process. A referendum is too instrumental to deliver meaningful input on an issue as complex as the treaty. A treaty contains many distinctive provisions. It would be impossible for government to know which part of the treaty voters did or did not support in the referendum.

Our treaty process provides opportunities for public involvement in our treaty negotiations through openness and the consultation process. We've met with many people in the Williams Lake district in regards to forestry and land issues. I speak against a referendum.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Dorothy. Are there any questions from the committee members?

D. Chutter: More of a statement than a question, just to clarify. I think your discussion or submission mainly related to treaty rights. That is not the topic of this group. It is about the questions that should be asked, about the principles of treaty negotiations. The key word is "principles" — principles that we all can agree on as British Columbians as to what we believe and how negotiations should proceed.

D. Phillips: At the beginning I said that I was speaking against the referendum and that I wasn't taking any questions.

J. Les (Chair): Just one minute, Dorothy. There's one more question from Gillian Trumper.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. You said you're at the fourth stage. Are you at the AIP stage — agreement-in-principle?

G. Trumper: Could I just ask you…? You made the comment that it has cost you a lot of money, and I think that in my area they've spent about $7 million, which is a huge amount of money for the number of bands. Do you have any thoughts on the process as to the finality of the treaty, whether or not it should be done in blocks rather than trying to get the whole thing settled and agreed to, or parts of it agreed to, and then finally getting the treaty as the final part of it? Those parts that I'm talking about would include interim agreements, maybe some social agreements, education agreements — but trying to get agreement on sections of it and then eventually having the treaty wholly signed. Do you have any thoughts on that?

The next presenter that I have on the schedule is Gord Rattray from the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association.

G. Rattray: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here this afternoon. I've handed out a presentation. It's about seven pages long. I'll try and move through it as quickly as we can.

My name is Gord Rattray, and I'm the general manager of the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association. The Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers Association represents the major sawmilling interests in a geographic region from Lytton in the south, Quesnel in the north, Anahim Lake in the west and to the Cariboo Mountains in the east.

In terms of the referendum, I will not speak in opposition to or in support for it. It's in the best interests of the government to make those decisions. In the event that government will proceed with it, then we have what we believe is some guidance for your consideration here this afternoon.

Just talking about the CLMA itself, we produce about 1.8 billion board feet — just some statistics to understand the magnitude of the industry in the Cariboo — and that equates to about 120,000 homes. We produce or harvest about 7.5 million cubic metres annually.

The need to settle treaties and bring certainty to land ownership in B.C. is critically important to our companies and to the forest industry. We support the current treaty initiative because we have to move forward. We've got to bring security and certainty to the land base of British Columbia. We've got to do that. It's in the best interests of all peoples within B.C. — first nations and all other British Columbians. So let's move forward on this and try to get it resolved as quickly as we can.

CLMA companies are continuing to build relationships with first nations. I believe we've been a leader in that regard. There are many innovative processes here in the Cariboo, and we continue to promote those and continue with various cooperative business arrangements.

In terms of the questions, there are some key issues that I'd like to address here very quickly this afternoon.

The major issue that we have — and I will pose a question for your consideration — is the issue around unencumbered access to Crown lands and resources following completion of treaties. As to the need to compensate third parties affected by negotiations, I don't want to pose a question on that. That's a complicated topic. I hope we'll be able to provide some consideration for your review.

We also would like to talk about interim agreements and interim measures. We know they're a controversial issue, but in terms of the length of time that is clearly still ahead of us in treaty negotiation completion, we think interim measures are an issue that needs to be addressed within the referendum — although, again, we will not pose a question.

If I can just move to the question that I would like to pose around this issue around certainty. The question I've posed within the presentation is: as a conclusion of the treaty process, do you support the concept that all British Columbians should have the same rights and opportunities outside of treaty settlement lands? I think that's a key issue for the forest industry.

Our tenure arrangements, as you are aware — be it forest licences, tree farm licences, managed forest agreements…. Clearly, there are some issues that we have to have certainty on, on the land base. We know full well that when treaty settlements are done, there will be treaty rights on the lands that are provided to the first nations people. There will be special issues that will be addressed on those lands. We think the citizens of British Columbia should be given the opportunity to state their position on whether they think there are other rights that should be provided to first nations outside of those treaty processes.

From the forest industry's perspective and from the CLMA perspective, we believe first nations should be accorded full rights on the treaty settlement lands, but off those lands, clearly, we should all be treated as British Columbians, first nations or whatever. We think that citizens of British Columbia should be given the opportunity to express their opinions on rights off of treaty settlement lands. I pose that question to you. I think it clearly is an important issue that we as citizens of British Columbia need to have some feel for.

Two other issues I addressed earlier were the issues around compensation and also the ones around interim measures. I'll just deal very quickly with the compensation issue. As treaties proceed and agreements are reached, there will be impacts upon Crown land. The forest industry recognizes that the settlements, when they are achieved, will incorporate both land and cash settlements. We support that concept.

We think that's in the best interests of the first nations as well as of all British Columbians, but there has to be a recognition that when those treaty agreements are made, the people of British Columbia must support that there has been economic impact upon specific individuals or firms. We think there needs to be some consideration given to asking British Columbia to support the compensation issue.

It's fundamental to how we do business in British Columbia. We have to maintain a healthy economic climate here and, if companies or contractors or whatever are dislocated, to ensure it as a healthy economic climate. The citizens of British Columbia and all Canadians, because this really is a joint process, should be prepared to recognize that there must be compensation to those individuals who are impacted or dislocated because of the treaty processes. That's a key issue that we think should be a consideration. Clearly, it would be a tough question to pose, but we think there is a need for British Columbians to voice their opinions on providing compensation to those third parties that are impacted as a result of treaty agreements.

The final point I would like to make is the issue around interim measures. It has been a controversial subject for many years, as we're all aware, but we know that the treaty process is not going to be expedient. Clearly, we've got many years ahead of us. We believe it's important that if we were to complete this process and ensure that first nations are motivated to stay at the table and move forward to find and resolve the treaty issue, there should be some incentives for doing that.

We go on record as supporting interim measures, but there needs to be consideration. Clearly, the citizens of British Columbia should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions on interim measures. There will be impacts upon all citizens of British Columbia as a result of those decisions, and that may be an issue your panel may give consideration to: how you would address the interim measures question.

There are so many options on the table to deal with interim measures that it's not something we as the CLMA or the forest industry would put on the table at this point, but we think you should give consideration to somehow addressing that within the questions you will pose.

Again, we need to have interim measures recognizing that first nations need to have those incentives. They need to have some benefit out of what the treaties ultimately will look like, but whatever those interim measures, they should not have an impact on our economic development within the province.

This province relies very heavily on the forest industry and the moneys it provides, so whatever the interim measures, they cannot impact economic development — the impacts upon our provincial treasury. We support them. We believe that they need to be put in place, but in posing a question or consideration to the citizens of British Columbia, they need to be given the opportunity to provide their opinion on going forward. Whatever interim measures are put in place should not impact our provincial economy.

That's a very quick overview of the points I want to make. I thank you for the opportunity to come here this afternoon to express these points. As the CLMA, we work very closely with the Council of Forest Industries. I always like to emphasize that I'm not a lawyer. There's some language in the brief that we pulled from our joint submissions that we made through the Coun

cil of Forest Industries. I'm aware that Marlie Beets, who's v-p for aboriginal affairs within the Council of Forest Industries, will be making a presentation to your panel when you get to Vancouver. If there are some specific technical questions, I may defer those to Marlie, but I would be pleased to take any questions that I think I can give you some answers for. Thank you, again.

B. Belsey: The interim measures that you just brought up…. You impress upon us that they shouldn't have an adverse effect on the current provincial economy. When I look at that and compare that to what we've heard in the past from first nations people regarding interim measures, I'm wondering what can possibly be part of first nations interim measure requirements that won't impact the provincial economy. Do you have some ideas?

G. Rattray: Well, the key issue we talk about is land moratoria; that's one of the concerns we have. There are many options, and I don't want to get into specific examples. I don't think this is the place for it. We would say that whatever the interim measures are, they should not involve moratoria on land and access to land over that period of time while the treaty process is in place.

G. Trumper: Just with the question that you have here — that all British Columbians should have the same rights and opportunities outside of treaty settlement lands…. I'm not sure whether you're able to answer this. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Nisga'a treaty.

G. Trumper: Are there issues there which have caused or could cause some concerns for your particular association?

G. Rattray: I guess the example I would provide is the issue around gathering rights. Again, my information and understanding of the Nisga'a agreement is that there are opportunities for provisions for things like gathering rights off the treaty settlement lands. That's an issue for us, because we think that could come forward in our access to the land base if there are some issues there that we need to address. Clearly, there are some additional complications to managing forest lands. I use that as an example of the treaty rights that should be maintained for the treaty settlement lands, but those sorts of rights outside of treaty settlement lands are difficult. They cause further complications. It's that sort of example that we would obviously encourage a government to consider in their deliberations. We think the citizens of British Columbia should understand that that is a complication. If there are extra rights, it's complicated on Crown-owned lands outside of treaty settlement lands.

G. Trumper: I asked the question because I'm not sure that some people would understand exactly what you meant by that. Thank you.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Gord, for your presentation and the question. I appreciate that. I also appreciate that you're not a lawyer, and neither am I, so I'm going to ask you a legal question — not quite.

I just want to be clear. I guess one interpretation of your question could be the converse of your question: on settlement lands, then, rights are different. Is that what you intended to convey? To me that means, for example, that on a treaty settlement land that might be thousands of hectares, laws with respect to forestry might be different. Calculation of AAC and all that kind of technical stuff might be different on settlement lands. Is that what you intended to convey? Let me put it more colloquially. There are those who say that the laws of Canada and British Columbia should apply to everybody, no matter what the status of the land is. Are you suggesting something a little different in your question? You seem to be, and I'd like just to clarify a little bit so that I get the point.

G. Rattray: I guess the example I would use is that within different jurisdictions, there are different approaches as to how we manage. I believe that even on treaty settlement lands, we should be treated equally, but differences in treaties…. There will be some different approaches that may be adopted across different treaties. My take on it is that, yeah, clearly there would be some practices — and maybe practices isn't the correct word — or approaches to mandate land or whatever would be different.

There could be some differences between how treaty settlement lands are dealt with versus Crown-owned lands. I'm not advocating differences in the Forest Practices Code or something, but my inference is that there are some differences. We expect that there will be some differences, and whatever those specific agreements are within the treaty settlement lands, they would not necessarily apply across onto Crown-owned lands. I guess the short answer is yes, I think there will be some differences. I don't know to what degree those differences may be, but where there are differences, there should be recognition of that. That should not carry over off of treaty settlement lands.

M. Hunter: If I may, the question on its surface seems to represent the concept that all British Columbians should have the same rights and opportunities outside the treaty settlement lands, but you say that…. I'm not cross-examining you, Gord; don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to draw out some thoughts here. Where would we draw the line? If there was some variation in forest practices or some technical issues…. If you look at the Nisga'a as an example, education and administration of justice are a little bit different, and

governance is certainly different. Where is the line that we would draw, or that you would ask British Columbians to draw, between rights and privileges on settlement lands and outside?

G. Rattray: I guess that's a difficult question for me to answer. I think the best way is to come up with specific examples. Mike, this probably isn't the place to get into specific examples. Fundamentally, there will be differences. I think British Columbians, as they go into these treaty processes, need to understand that there may be differences. On treaty settlement lands, if that's really how treaties evolve — and we don't have a lot of experience with how they evolve…. Nisga'a is really the first one. If there are differences on treaty settlement lands, those should not carry on to other lands. That's probably the best way I can explain it at this point without having specific examples.

M. Hunter: Thanks, Gord. As I say, neither of us are lawyers, but I just wanted to draw you out a little bit so that I did understand. And I think I do, so thank you.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): I couldn't keep my mouth shut, Gord — everyone talking about lawyers. I am a lawyer, but having said that, it's not to say that….

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Yeah, bad combination, as Mike says — a lawyer and a politician. In any event, I'm not convinced that you have to be a lawyer to understand, intuitively or otherwise, matters of principle. Your presentation is helpful, as is the perspective of those who have presented here earlier today. Perhaps being a lawyer gets in the way sometimes of talking about principle. I'm not sure, given that we are an unprincipled bunch. [Laughter.] In any event, thanks very much for your presentation.

D. MacKay: Gord, just to follow up a little bit with treaties, you didn't support or speak against the referendum, and I gather you more or less support the continuation of the treaty process.

D. MacKay: To me a treaty is a contract, and when a contract is signed, that usually means the end of it. I have to ask: do you foresee finality in a treaty? If you don't, is there a way of achieving finality so that a hundred years from now treaties aren't reopened, and we're back at this exercise again that we're faced with today? Can you see finality as part of a treaty?

G. Rattray: Well, yes, that's our ultimate goal here. When we talk about security, certainly on the land base we would hope that whatever treaties come forward will provide that. If the completion of a treaty provides that, then we would hope that…. That's ultimately our goal, and that's what we want to achieve out of this thing. Like anything, I guess, there's always going to be changes that will have to be looked at down the road as society changes, and those sorts of things. In terms of conclusion of treaty, if it provides certainty — and we understand the direction we're going to go and how we're going to operate on the land-base thing — that's what we're looking for. We hope that's the outcome.

J. Les (Chair): As there are no further questions, we thank you, Gord, for coming out today and presenting on behalf of your association.

The next presenter on our agenda is Bee Hooker from the Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources Society.

B. Hooker: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come and speak to your group here today. As you can see, my name is Bee Hooker. I am co-Chair of Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources. Just a little bit about myself first. I'm a small business owner. I have a logging company that employs about 15 people who have all the income they get in a year. I'd like to call them full-time, but at this point in time and in this economy we're still off for about two months of the year. Hopefully we'll keep it to that, working ten months of the year. At times during the year with the logging economy we get up to as many as 25 employees with the company that I have.

The reason I belong to Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources and the reason that I work with this organization is that Share is a group that tries to represent the people who understand the value of the land and the resources. The land is able to provide employment and stability to communities. The wealth of the land is generated by people going out there and working on it, and working with an understanding that the land can be run in a sustainable, environmentally friendly fashion. We need to have working people who have a direct tie to the land.

Our membership of Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources represents people from logging, mining, ranching and small business people that are involved in business in Williams Lake — store owners, supply people, equipment manufacturers and equipment dealers. All of these people understand how our economy and our community stability are tied to the land. That's why Share exists, and we see that we need to get involved in land use decisions and, of course, with treaty settlement.

The way treaty settlement has been done up until this point in time takes an awful hard look at the land. We see that some of the stuff that's come out of the treaty process has been based on: "There's nobody out there on that land, so let's alienate that land and use it for treaty settlement." Well, I'm here to tell you that all of that land out there is spoken for in one way, shape or form. Even though it's Crown land, even though it's recognized as being provincial land, even though you don't see anybody there at the moment, either that land is being used by a rancher for grazing purposes, or it's

tenured through the forestry, or there's a miner that has application for exploration purposes, or there's a timber company that has tenure in that area and has a recognized timber licence. For my purposes, being a logging contractor, I need access to that Crown land for my company to exist and for me to keep employment for people in my company.

With that in mind, we at Share Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources created the document that I think you all have in front of you. I don't think you want me to read out the whole thing. I could just read the opening part of it. We support the negotiation of treaties to resolve land claims. The current government-native relationship has proven ineffectual and wasteful in today's society. Our economy and social structures cannot afford to alienate large portions of land or resources for the sole use of one group of people. It is our hope that over time native Indian people, while maintaining their cultural heritage, will come to share responsibilities and opportunities available to all Canadians.

Then we go on in this document to outline equality for land and resources. All B.C. land and resources, native and non-native, must be subject to the same provincial and federal laws and regulations such as the Forest Practices Code and the Environmental Protection Act. We go on to talk about the justice system, taxation and finality. As a fundamental term of any treaty, all groups involved in the treaty-making must recognize and agree to the final and binding nature of the treaty. All treaties must be final.

We go on to talk about extinguishment and self-government. In self-government we believe that treaty settlement lands must be operated under the same principles as municipal government. This must be the entire extent of self-government.

Third-party interests. Third-party interests must be incorporated into the treaty-making process. Basically, I'm a third party as a logger, because I don't actually hold the tenure to the land that I am out there logging on. The licensee I work for holds the tenure, so my company ends up becoming a third-party interest, and my employees who depend on the company for a job are a third party as well. As a landowner and having a grazing lease tied to the ranching operations that my family has, I'm a tenure holder and not a third party because I have a grazing lease recognized by the province. It's very intricate, all of the different aspects out there that come into play when you start talking about treaty and how we're going to settle this.

Openness. All position papers and information regarding the treaty negotiation process and interim measures should be readily available to the public on a timely and ongoing basis. Draft documents of agreements reached at working group sessions should not be signed off by negotiators speaking on behalf of third-party interests until they are ratified at the CCRTNC table. That's the Cariboo-Chilcotin regional treaty negotiating committee, for anybody that tries to keep up with all the acronyms.

Interim agreements. I heard those talked about earlier. Interim measures are not to be negotiated, as they create a disincentive to begin or close negotiations and can adversely impact third-party interests.

Property rights. Private property is not to be any part of the negotiation. It is not on the table. Property, resource and other rights, which include leases and licences, must retain their present title and legal status as described by the laws and statutes of our federal, provincial and municipal governments. Any expropriation must receive full, fair and timely compensation.

Certainty. The province must have clear jurisdiction over all Crown land so that activities can be administered and managed efficiently and not delayed by consultation with joint management bodies.

I'm spending too much time on this. I'll go right on to No. 12, cost. Treaty settlements must be mainly in the form of cash equivalents in order to avoid massive displacement and compensation for third-party interests. The total monetary cost of treaty settlements must be affordable. Economic and social impacts of treaty agreements must be outlined and form part of the agreement-in-principle. The cost of settlements must be borne by all Canadians. Where displacement is unavoidable, compensation must be paid at the time of displacement. These costs must be included in the total monetary cost of the treaty.

Finally, ratification of the treaty. Ratification of treaties should be subject to an open public hearing and approval through a regional referendum that is open to both native and non-native communities prior to the signing of the final document.

I skipped over a few of the points there, only because I realized there's a time line here. If anybody in the building wants a copy of this, we can arrange to have a copy of it for the stuff I haven't covered off there.

In finishing up here, there are some main points I need to touch on. Cost. It has to be all Canadians that pay for this. That's why we see money as being the form of settlement — not land, but money. That way all Canadians will feel the bite in their tax dollars, with the tax bill or whatever, so they will be helping cover the cost of those treaties. If we do it in the form of land, if we alienate land and then use that as part of the settlement process, that land has to come from somewhere. You'll be taking land away from the land base that is already being utilized by another party. Then that party will need compensation. If you want to avoid the third-party compensation, the way to do it is to go with a cash settlement. I realize there is going to have to be some land on the table. We as the Share group understand that, but we would definitely encourage you to seek cash as the chief instrument of settling these treaties.

As for land, land that is used for treaty settlement purposes in this context should be of a fee simple nature. If the land is tied up in any other form, where it is subject to special conditions, then that land will not be able to be used by these people for business purposes. If you go to the bank and want to use something as collateral, the bank can only use it as collateral and allow you to function in your business if it is some

thing that they can hold on to. I've covered this off with other government people, negotiators, before. That seems to be something that the negotiators have a hard time understanding.

You know yourself that if you want to grow your business and if you need to borrow money — I don't know of any business that doesn't work with a line of credit — you have to have something tangible. You can look anywhere in the world. Countries in the world that have recognized fee title systems for people to own land are the countries that have a lifestyle that we would recognize as similar to our own — a good lifestyle and a place that we would want to live. But if the land is tied up in some other fashion so that it can only be owned by Indians…. If they can't borrow against it at the bank, then I think they will be sentenced to a continuation of the reserve system, where their land is not valued the same as everybody else's land. You've got to think about it a bit. It's a bit much to swallow at one time.

The only other point is on the municipal side of things. I honestly feel that self-government is a wonderful idea, but if we allow a government to be created that is based solely on race…. I don't know of any other place in the world where a government based on race or religion works. I realize that we're talking about a different situation here, but it's not different. I think that a municipal government where, when somebody from Williams Lake moves out to Soda Creek, they have as much of a vote there as somebody of aboriginal origin….

D. MacKay: First of all, thank you for the presentation. You obviously spent a bit of time preparing this for us today, and I appreciate it. I appreciate the candour with which you delivered it. The one thing you didn't touch on was the timetable.

D. MacKay: That's of interest to me. I wondered if it's in there because you feel that if there's a timetable to be met, the negotiators will get to the end result a lot quicker. If that was the intent of that proposal being in there, what do you see as a reasonable time frame to come to some resolution of this process that we're in?

B. Hooker: Good question. Yes, we do have it in there. That's No. 11 on our list. This is just my own personal opinion; it's something that we've talked about at our Share meetings. Myself, I see five years. Why not set a definite time line? Right now we're on the never-never plan. The negotiators, government, everybody that's involved in this, myself — I believe we've been involved here in Williams Lake and have been coming to meetings for about nine years now. We aren't getting much closer, and I think we need to set up a time line so that there is a sense of urgency, so that we can carry on with our lives and have some certainty. Right now the fact that nothing is settled is costing all of us. It's costing every person in British Columbia, aboriginal or non-aboriginal.

D. MacKay: There appears to be a disincentive at the present time to resolve this, given the salaries that some of the treaty negotiators are drawing and the fact that it seems to be a career for them now as opposed to an interim measure, if you use that term.

B. Hooker: Yes, I definitely agree with you, Dennis, that there are people out there who, for lack of a better term, are part of the Indian treaty industry. It seems like we've got people out there for whom that is their career. I think there's a lot more business that needs to be done, and we should get this matter settled. I hope to have it settled in a fashion that everybody can agree is a good and fair treaty for all Canadians, all people of British Columbia. But honestly, yes, there are people who have created their livelihoods out of it, and they will be doing this job until they retire.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Bee, for your presentation. You've made a very passionate plea that we give serious consideration to land and how it is dealt with in subsequent treaties. Given that our mandate is to make recommendations for a referendum, I'm wondering if you could help me put together a question that may include something with land so that everybody in this province has an opportunity to take a look at it and voice their opinion or their concern.

B. Hooker: Oh, definitely. I don't think I could give you that answer right here or right now. Yes, I do feel very passionately about this. I would more than emphasize that. I will take this back to the Share group, and we'll definitely come up with some recommendations as to what we think should be in that referendum question. Yes, I do feel quite passionate about this.

This treaty needs to be done, and I feel that I would be doing a disservice to my children and my future grandchildren that I hope will exist someday. We should do this right the first time, and we should get this settled as quickly as possible so that the future generations can look back on this and not say: "What the heck were those guys doing back then?" We need to settle this in our generation.

B. Belsey: Yes, that would certainly be suitable. I didn't intend to put you on the spot, but if you could put together a question for us and submit it, that would be greatly appreciated.

R. Visser: Are you familiar with the principles that the province is using currently to guide treaty negotiations?

B. Hooker: I've got a copy of it in my files. I couldn't recite it, but I'm familiar that it exists.

R. Visser: I won't put you on the spot, but when you're drafting your questions you might consider some of the principles that exist now that we use as a framework.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): There's reference made to a lot of specifics, but as various members have pointed out, it would be most helpful to us if we had questions in and around principle. With respect to the specific issues that you've outlined here, it might be helpful, Bee, both to you and to your organization, to have some sense in terms of historical perspective with respect to common law, how it has evolved and continues to evolve, as well as federal policy in and around land claims. I believe we have that information available, which I think would be very helpful to you in terms of some of the recommendations you've made. You can compare your position with where we are going and seem to be going in some of those areas.

I think an opinion is a great thing, and an informed opinion is an even better thing. Having said that, it is not to say that your opinion is entirely uninformed. I just think there's much we can all learn in terms of talking about these issues.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Bee, on behalf of the committee, for coming this afternoon. We appreciate your input.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Next would be Ted Armstrong from the Cariboo regional district.

T. Armstrong: Good afternoon. Actually, the reason I'm here is that I lost the vote this afternoon — not seriously.

T. Armstrong: Actually, I'm here to welcome you to Williams Lake and thank you for making Williams Lake one of the places to hold a public hearing. The only question the board had about that is: are we part of the Kootenay or the Okanagan region?

J. Les (Chair): Well, the last time I checked, you were still very much the Cariboo.

J. Les (Chair): We apologize for the omission of reference to the Cariboo in the press release.

T. Armstrong: I was glad to see some other elected officials here. Rick Gibson, a councillor from Williams Lake, was here until just a couple of minutes ago. Ivan Bonnell, the mayor of Williams Lake, is sitting back there, and so is Steve Wallace, the mayor of Quesnel. I think you know both of those fellows quite well.

J. Les (Chair): We know those gentlemen very well, particularly Mr. Wallace, of former UBCM fame.

Actually, because of the size of the regional district and …. Oh, I should explain myself. I was Chairman of the Cariboo regional district for seven years. I'm currently the Chairman of TAC — for about the last six years. Because of the wide distances most of our directors travel, we only met today, so it was hard to get something together. Just to let you know, we are going to make a brief for you on the principles to guide your referendum, and it will be coming forward fairly shortly.

T. Armstrong: That's probably the shortest presentation you've had all day — eh?

J. Les (Chair): That's quite all right. I need to canvass the committee to see if there are any questions at this point. Based on your very brief presentation, I gather there aren't any.

J. Les (Chair): But we will certainly be looking forward to your written submission. Remember, November 2 is the deadline.

J. Austin: Good afternoon. Actually, I meant to just drop this off, but since there was such a short lineup, I thought I would just present it.

J. Austin: I speak on my behalf, but I want to be official. I'm Reverend Juanita Austin, the minister at the local United Church. Unfortunately, I know that the United Church in B.C. has been trying to come up with a statement in response to the proposed referendum, but as of a couple of days ago the special committee on first nations issues had not met, so I don't have something official.

Coming out of discussions from the B.C. conference executive of the United Church in May, I have trouble

giving suggestions for questions on the required referendum because I believe that it's unethical for a majority of the people to make a decision that affects a minority group. I think that's what would happen if we went ahead with a referendum on this issue.

I don't know great detail of the treaty negotiations, but I do know they've been going on in B.C. for years. My hope is that we would just get on with them — get the federal government on board and get on with them. There is a process in place. My concern is that a referendum would only serve to stall an already mind-numbingly slow process.

I know that to put a referendum on would be quite expensive. My hope is that instead of going to a referendum, the money could be used to educate the citizens of B.C. about the sad history of B.C. politics that has led us to this day, where we're still trying to honour treaties that began 100 years ago and haven't really progressed much since then.

G. Trumper: You raised the question of education. I think one of the most difficult things throughout the treaty process has been getting the attention of the general public on treaty negotiations. As was said earlier, I've been involved in it for a long time too, and we haven't been very successful. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can get the attention of people so that when the questions are moulded for the referendum, which is on principles — nothing to do with constitutional rights, because they're there — to try and speed up the process…? Do you have any suggestions on how we can get the attention of people so that they are informed?

J. Austin: Well, I subscribe to the Treaty News, which tries to keep track of the treaty processes that are ongoing. I haven't received one for a while. I'm not sure what that means. I also know that people aren't really into printed material too well.

One of the things that I found most effective, which we used at a regional presbytery meeting, was actually a videotape that we managed to get from the B.C. Forest Service, of all places. It talked about treaty negotiations in B.C. It gave some history and had a very interesting interview with Frank Calder and…. Oh, who's the big Scotsman?

J. Austin: Jack Webster. Thank you. I found that to be just really engaging. I think one of the comments was: "Well, what's your problem, you people? We came in and we won the war, so take what you get." And I know Frank Calder, back in the sixties, was saying: "There wasn't a war. You didn't win. This is our land, and we're still trying to figure out how to share it." I think it has to go right back to those grassroots and remind us again of the history — that treaties were made and were not honoured. Aside from that, not being prepared for questions, I don't have another quick response.

D. MacKay: Juanita, thank you. I just can't let this go. Your feelings were that it was unethical for the majority to make decisions for the minority. It begs the statement from me that the type of government we have in this country is called democracy. Democracy is defined in the dictionary as a government ruled by a majority, with compassion and understanding for minority rights. Unless we involve the majority of the people of British Columbia in the principles that guide the treaty process, I don't think we have a democracy. I think we have to include the rest of the people of the province in the principles that guide the treaty process if we're ever going to have any resolution to this problem. It just begs the question. It plays on the word "democracy" and on our type of government. I just wanted to leave that with you.

J. Austin: I do understand our type of government. It seems that I generally vote for the minority.

V. Anderson: Maybe you can't answer this right now, but I'd be interested in the answer. In the aboriginal group that you represent in the United Church, what process have they gone through to do their own research about the nature, purpose and understanding of what the referendum is?

J. Austin: Val, I'm actually here today not representing. I haven't come and said, "Okay, St. Andrew's, I'm coming to speak for you," because we have quite a divergent group of people. I was part of the conference executive meeting in Burnaby in May, when Charlotte Sullivan, a member of one of our native congregations from the Prince Rupert area, spoke. She said: "Please keep us in your prayers. This is going to be very tough for us."

My response was: "What can we do as a conference?" Unfortunately, that group hasn't met, so I don't feel I'm that articulate. I haven't been able to hear what would be most helpful to them. So it's just me, in between coming off work and going back to choir practice, dropping off some ideas.

J. Les (Chair): Further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Juanita, for coming this afternoon. We appreciate it very much.

At the moment I don't have any other names on the list of people who wish to present. However, I see several faces in the audience who have not yet spoken. If they wish to do so, now would be a good opportunity.

J. Les (Chair): I know you weren't going to, but you've made a better decision.

T. Phillips: Hello. My name is Thomas Phillips. I'm from the Soda Creek band. To tell you the truth, I think this referendum is a waste of time and taxpayers' money. We've been in the treaty process for eight years now. How long is this going to take?

Right now we go to the negotiation tables with B.C. and Canada, and we agree on something. They go away to the higher-ups, and they come back and say: "No, we can't do that." This is a waste of time. We should be negotiating with the higher-ups.

The federal government gives us money every year. We don't have enough money to do anything. We barely have enough money to get by. What I would like is more taxation dollars. This is what I would like to negotiate for. We don't necessarily want all the land; we only want enough land to sustain ourselves. This is what we would like.

With this referendum, if you're going to do it — well, you are going to do it — make sure the people know about it and what it's about. Okay?

You mentioned that you needed enough land to survive on. I think that was your term. But you talked about the taxation or the cash element.

T. Phillips: Yeah, self-governance. We want taxation — the taxation dollars from those lands, from the leases and what not.

G. Trumper: Whatever. You're saying that to you, the cash element is an important part of the eventual settlement of treaty?

T. Phillips: Yes, it is — enough to be self-sufficient, to live in better communities, better housing, etc. The amount of money we get now isn't enough.

G. Trumper: The reason I ask that is because we've heard up in this area of British Columbia that the land part is more important than the financial aspect, but you're saying the financial aspect is a very important part as well.

T. Phillips: As well as the land — both rights and title to the land and taxes on those lands.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your coming forward, and I agree with you that it's important that the people know what it is about. That's partly what we're trying to do through this very process. We're here so that people will know and read it on the websites and those kinds of things. What would be your suggestion from your own experience with either the aboriginal people or the non-aboriginal people? How best do we enable the people to know about it? Do you have suggestions in that regard? That would be helpful. In your own community, for instance….

T. Phillips: Have a provincewide TV debate on it with both sides. It would be a lot quicker.

J. Les (Chair): It has the potential of being quicker. I remember some TV debates around issues to do with these very things. I'm still wondering today how informative they were. They tend to become very political. It's good political theatre sometimes, but information is sometimes a little hard to come by in that setting. It's certainly worthwhile to think about.

The other frustration I think I heard you mention, Thomas, was the fact that treaty-making is taking a long time. We're not seeing any results. Could you agree with us that if this process that we're about at the moment results in greater certainty on behalf of the provincial negotiators — so that they don't have to refer to higher-ups, as you call them — it would then result in the treaty process perhaps being reinvigorated and able to move along more quickly? Would you agree that this would be a worthwhile product of this process?

T. Phillips: Yes, it would, especially for our elders now. A lot of them are dying off. They're not going to see treaty or the benefits of treaty. With interim measures right now, we're not even getting much of that. Things should be sped up in that process too. Our elders are dying off. They're not seeing anything from treaty; yet they want treaty. Sure, it will be fine for some of our generations, but what about now? What about those elders?

My name is Bill Carruthers. I'm a director of the Share the Cariboo-Chilcotin Resources Society. As well, I have worked with Bee Hooker, who was here earlier. We love to take on the opportunity to help with the question issue.

I'm just going to read a little bit about what I put together here and then maybe just talk a little bit about the issues. In my personal job, I help with aboriginal economic self-determination. What a number of the native groups do is send people to me who want some assistance putting together business plans, because they want to get into the economic opportunities that are available around here. One of the issues that comes up clearly is one that I'd like to reinforce; it's what Bee talked about. Their total net worth when they arrive at my office is very low, and it makes it very difficult to be able to raise financial loans for them to get into some business opportunities. That is a big holdback for them, and it always will be as long as they want to stay within the reserve structure without having their own ability to raise their net worth.

I want to talk a little bit about the question of the referendum on treaty negotiations. I support this issue as long as the general population understands the implications of land claims issues. The non-aboriginal population must understand that they will be paying for any settlements that will ultimately be achieved. In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the distinction between aboriginal and non-aboriginal is not very clear. Over the years many natives and non-natives have partnered up, with the result that many residents of the area have some native in them. Some of these people qualify as status, but most do not. My wife is one-eighth native based on a marriage between a man from Quebec and a native lady at the turn of the century. I recently attended a family powwow at the Sugar Cane Indian band at which there were 200 people. They're the descendents of this couple. Many of them live off the reserve and have nothing to do with the status aspect of it; many of them still live on the reserve.

The distinction between the two groups is clearly that one has moved on, and the others are staying behind. I don't know if the reserve system is the result of that or what happens to these people, but they're working in a totally different environment. As I mentioned here, my wife is one-eighth native based on the marriage. She has very little to do with her relatives who are still on the reserves, as she has a career and a family that are traditional in the non-native community. She asked the question of what she has to contribute to land claims settlements to get this issue settled.

We all know that injustices took place in this area and many others as well. The referendum question should be worded in such a fashion that once and for all, the issue of natives' reserve tax exemptions and free services be addressed with the idea that we will all end up with the same potential opportunities and that no group will be relegated to living with a distinct disadvantage or advantage over other groups in society.

Please be decisive about getting this issue settled, as our economy is affected by the indecisiveness that goes along with land claims issues. Mr. Hooker said five years; I'd give you five months. Do it, and do it quickly. I realize it's a very, very difficult question to do, but we have to come to some finality in this situation and get on with it both for the aboriginal people and for the non-aboriginal people in terms of getting this province kick-started back into business again. Is that enough?

V. Anderson: Quite often today, and other days too, it's come up that the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal…. Yet it's come up that we have third-party interests and a whole variety of people involved. So there seems to be many perspectives. We are agreed that we're all dependent upon a solution. Is there a way that we can see ourselves as parts of a common picture rather than opposites?

B. Carruthers: I very much believe that's what the objective has to be. We have to have common goals for all of us. We can't be diverse. That's one of the issues I have.

We had Dale Lovick and our former MLA here come and speak to our Share group about the Nisga'a treaty settlement. The bottom line out of it, I believe, is that we ended up with two different systems. We've got their system, which they might or might not like, and then we've got our system. There are no common goals in the thing there. I think you're quite correct in asking for that. We have to have some common overall objectives out of this thing here so that all parties can operate on the same level playing field without any advantages or disadvantages.

V. Anderson: To follow that up, we have taken a great deal of pride in Canada — maybe falsely, but we have taken it — in that we have used the term "multicultural" to indicate that not only do we celebrate our similarities, which contribute to each other, but we also celebrate our distinct differences, which also contribute to each other. Is there a way in this discussion that we can celebrate the distinct aboriginal contributions which are necessary for our community, to be highlighted for our overall well-being?

B. Carruthers: I think history would prove that they have a lot and contributed a lot to the culture of this area. If you go to many events in this area, they're heavily supported by the aboriginal communities. They have some common things. If you have a hockey game here, they're better than half the people in it. If you have a rodeo here, a good portion of them are aboriginal people. So they have some very common goals, but they still maintain their own heritage ideas. I don't think they should give them up. We all have our own family issues that we deal with — you know, the things that we celebrate at different times of the year and stuff like birthdays and marriages within our own families.

I don't think there should be anything about not preserving what they have going for them. In fact, I think they have a wonderful thing going for them in some aspects of it. But because of the British poorhouse system we imposed upon them, called the reserve system, I think we've done them a terrible injustice. I'd like

to see that injustice removed from the situation, not added to but removed, so that it breaks away from the chains and yokes that we've put on them.

Still continue on, have your own heritage, and have your own culture. There's a German Canadian club here. I don't see them changing anything that they've got going for them. There are a number of other community groups like that, which are following along the lines of what their heritage is, but at the same time they still mesh and merge with what's going on in everyday life here. I don't see any imposition of their position on the rest of society, nor is there any pressure from the rest of the society for them not to carry on their traditions.

V. Anderson: Just one more follow-up on that. It seems to me, as I follow that line of reasoning, that one of the new economies we have been trying to invite the world to come and share with us is our tourism. Is it not true that a very significant part of that tourism is increasingly that people would like to come and share the culture and the art and the carving and the music and the spirituality of our native people?

B. Carruthers: Certainly, and I think they can develop that into an economic opportunity for themselves — not to exploit it like the Kodak film festival in Hawaii or something like that. I think they can use that. I've been out to Soda Creek when they've put on some of their cultural things, explaining some of their family

values. They'll go back and show us their keekwillie huts that they used to live in, how they cooked and different things like that. I think that's a wonderful issue, and I don't see any reason why they can't continue to develop that.

I go back to a basic premise that tourism is not a job creator in the fashion that I'd like to see it. It doesn't pay high wages, and it doesn't create year-round jobs in this community, despite the fact that people think it does. They're only going to be able to benefit by it on a part-time basis. They still have to find some way of balancing out the rest of the year.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak this afternoon before we recess for dinner? Seeing no one, we will recess the meeting until 6:30 p.m.

J. Les (Chair): We're going to call this meeting back to order, just briefly.

It is now 7:30. I believe all of the residents of Williams Lake who wished to present to the committee today have done so. So at this point I will adjourn the meeting. We will pack up and head for Kelowna.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS