Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 10 - Friday, October 12, 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); Blair Lekstrom, MLA; Bill Belsey, MLA; Dave Chutter, MLA; Mike Hunter, MLA; Dennis MacKay, MLA; Gillian Trumper, MLA; Rod Visser MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Val Anderson, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 10:03 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) William G. Jewitt
    2) Ken Berg

4. The Committee recessed from 11:33 a.m. to 2:01 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    3) Andy Shadrack
    4) Patricia Floyd
    5) Maureen Campsall

6. The Committee recessed from 3:04 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.

7. The Committee heard the following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    6) Don Mazur
    7) Dave Brown
    8) Gunnar Kahn
    9) Robert Shypitka

8. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 4:34 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		269
	W. Jewitt	269
	K. Berg	277
	A. Shadrack	280
	P. Floyd	283
	M. Campsall	286
	M. Mazur	289
	D. Brown	289
	G. Kahn	292
	R. Shypitka	293

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:	Ken Berg Dave Brown Maureen Campsall Patricia Floyd William Jewitt Gunnar Kahn Don Mazur Andy Shadrack (Selkirk College) Robert Shypitka

J. Les (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's meetings of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. My name is John Les. I'm the MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas, and I chair this committee. Before members of the committee introduce themselves, I'd like to make a few remarks about what the committee has been asked to do by the Legislative Assembly.

The committee was established on August 27 of this summer. It was empowered to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions which the government of British Columbia should submit to voters to implement the government's commitment to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum while ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title are respected. Copies of the committee's terms of reference and other information about the committee legislative process are also available at the information table at the back of the room. The committee is eager to hear the views of all British Columbians, and in this process we hope to build interest and support for the treaty process.

To this end, the committee has publicized a hearing process and a call for written submissions in radio and newspaper ads throughout the province, and we'll be accepting written submissions until Friday, November 2. We have held a number of public meetings throughout British Columbia already. Currently we are about halfway through the process, and the finalized itinerary is available on the website.

These hearings will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff. Transcripts are available on the committee's website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt. Following the public hearings, the committee will prepare a report of its observations and recommendations. This report will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly or, if the House is not in session, it will be deposited with the Clerk by November 30. The report is a public document once it has been tabled or deposited.

I'd now like to ask the members and the Committee Clerk to introduce themselves, starting with Mr. MacKay.

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

B. Lekstrom: Good morning. I'm Blair Lekstrom, MLA for Peace River South. Dawson Creek is my home.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Good morning. My name is Kate Ryan-Lloyd. I'm the Clerk to the committee.

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

R. Visser: I'm Rod Visser. I'm the MLA for North Island, and my home is in Campbell River.

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

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

J. Les (Chair): At the back of the room at the information table we have Tamara Little.

At this point we have four people who are scheduled to make presentations to the committee. If anyone is here who would like to make a presentation and hasn't registered yet, I would encourage you to do so at the table at the back.

All of that having been said, we're ready for our first presentation this morning, from Mr. William Jewitt.

W. Jewitt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Bill Jewitt. I'm here speaking as a private citizen residing in Trail with an interest in aboriginal affairs. I've written a number of columns on the subject for our local newspaper, and I appeared before this committee here in Cranbrook in 1997 when the subject was the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle.

Before discussing the referendum and possible questions, I think it's useful to first consider what the underlying reasons are for this initiative. The central problem in aboriginal affairs in B.C. is that the treaty process appears to have stalled and no treaties have been signed. The most serious manifestation of this condition is that some agreements-in-principle have been rejected by first nations members. One of the most serious long-range consequences this presents to our provincial government is that the lack of certainty in resource and land jurisdiction and title is a major obstacle to resource development.

Political rhetoric to the contrary, provincial governments do not have a lot of areas wherein their actions by themselves will largely determine the outcome

of economic events. Even in this matter of land claims the most constructive efforts of our provincial government cannot guarantee positive results, because there are other parties and other interests, but our provincial government can single-handedly bring the process and development to a grinding halt for a decade if it approaches these questions in a clumsy, bullying fashion that tries to unilaterally impose radical changes to the negotiation objectives and principles. This is a time for statesmanship and wisdom, not political one-upmanship or blind ideology. I ask you to keep focused on the central issues at a practical level and forgo the intellectual pleasures of arguing about abstract or hypothetical questions. Heed carefully the advice of those close to the process, your deputy minister and the other participants, especially the B.C. Treaty Commission.

I'll comment on some of the factors in more detail in my main brief, but points include the following. Spend the time and resources required to fully explore the possibility of streamlining the process through aggregation of groups and two-level negotiations. Think of the union model of main general issues resolved with centralized negotiations at one level and local issues settled with each first nation individually.

It's a relief to see some interim measures, treaty-related measures and land protection measures finally being implemented. They are essential to the honour of the Crown during negotiations. Don't even think of reversing the present trend.

At key junctures in negotiations it is important to be honest and open about positions and interests. Failure to deal directly with the issue of compensation is a case in point. There are a number of reasons why both native and non-native people are very confused about this issue. An information program is sorely needed both at the tables and around the province. Start with the fact it is not a reasonable position at law to consider that Canada is obligated to buy back British Columbia.

Interest-based negotiations versus population-based formulae is another subject that needs to be addressed more directly. This is a tough one for the smaller first nations and may cause them to cease negotiating. It's clear the original terms of financial negotiations may leave them with little or no equity, which certainly would be defeating what should be one of the main objectives, that of fostering economic self-sufficiency. Forgiving the loans should not trigger the ratcheting up reaction, but it should be done without removing all incentives for signing treaties.

Some first nations want to retain a measure of control over all of their traditional territory through co-management or co-jurisdiction. In the sense that this could mean that a first nation involved has a veto on development projects, etc., this should be a non-starter. By extension, this would result in 3 or 4 percent of the population having a veto power throughout the province. However, acting in an advisory capacity on some matters in some parts of the territory, as in the Nisga'a treaty, could be a reasonable position. It's important for honest, direct talk to take place at the tables and around the province on this issue.

While an incremental approach may be very helpful to concluding treaties, I'd be careful about delinking governance and land settlements. It's easy to have a governance agreement without land settlements, although it's not easy to have land settlements without jurisdictional and title issues settled. I think it is therefore in the province's best interest to maintain the linkage between the two to avoid being left with a never-ending stream of title disputes that block development.

The current government's position on municipal-style government only will pose a dilemma. It won't bother the federal government. They'll just proceed with self-government agreements as they see fit. The provincial government should rethink its position on this. The Sechelt self-government agreement has been in force for about 15 years, and it's very similar in jurisdictional powers to those in the Nisga'a agreement. Also, the Nisga'a government is a common model in the United States. The Nisga'a agreement can also be amended without any constitutional amendments. In my brief I even offer you a possible solution to the no-taxation-without-representation dilemma.

Although the system is overloaded with the present tables, some attention must be paid to establishing an acceptable negotiating procedure with significant groups of first nations, including the Okanagan Nation Alliance, who have declined to participate so far. Here again it seems to me that open, honest discussions and some flexibility should be able to resolve this problem. If not, then at some point in time reference should be made to the Supreme Court of Canada for advice, as it is intolerable to think that development of such large areas cannot proceed indefinitely because of an absolute refusal to negotiate.

Extinguishment of aboriginal rights. It's a non-starter, but to the extent it is still perceived to be an obstacle by some native groups not in the treaty negotiations, some information about the current views on defining, rather than extinction, could be helpful.

Take heart that the time spent to date has not been entirely wasted. I've grown to realize, as many others have, that developing trust between first nations and government is a slow process. The gulf of mistrust has been wide and deep.

It seems to me that negotiations would be expedited if views on land interests, in the specific territorial and jurisdictional sense, were exchanged at an earlier stage than seems to happen — at least at some tables.

Taking unilateral action in what is a tripartite process will be destructive, particularly when there are procedures in place for having discussions or for making changes on a tripartite basis.

The provincial government should avoid unproductive efforts and side issues that don't bear directly on getting the negotiation process moving again. In business these are called flight activities, where people do anything rather than focus on the central problems. Examples here would be court challenges to such

things as forms of government and cost-sharing arrangements, the latter of which is subject to periodic renegotiation in any case.

Finally, if there's validity to the view that only tribal groups have the right to cede aboriginal title, that should be settled promptly — again by reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, if necessary.

Regarding a referendum, I happen to oppose holding a referendum for reasons I've detailed in my brief. If a major objective is to inform the public on treaty negotiations, obviously your timing is unfortunate. The media's attention has been turned to larger concerns. So how are you going to inform the public without being perceived as just issuing propaganda? It may provide a bit of an ego trip for witnesses like myself to have an opportunity to speak directly to government members, but these proceedings by themselves will not likely change our opinions very much. I guess the important question is whether the views of any of the committee members may be changed or whether your minds are also already made up.

Unlike the situation during the Nisga'a hearings you have two important advantages. One is that the official opposition is in a very weak position but should be in attendance here nevertheless. Secondly, the most vociferous and influential critics of the process are on your side of the fence. I hope you deal with your mandate with statesmanship and wisdom.

With regard to the principles, I'd first like to define some objectives we have in striking treaties. These might or might not translate into principles. First of all, I agree with the objectives of the province of B.C. as expressed by Deputy Minister Steenkamp in his presentation. In addition, for your consideration I suggest, firstly, the government of British Columbia will assist in the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown. In the interests of natural justice and mutual goodwill it will endeavour to achieve treaties that are fairer to all participants. Secondly, through treaties and other means the government of British Columbia will facilitate and encourage participation by aboriginals in our mainstream society. This includes providing educational opportunities and, perhaps, bridging mechanisms and facilitating economic enterprises.

I noted the deputy minister's comment that the 18 principles pronounced by the government between 1993 and 1995 describe the issues that are of concern to the public and the stakeholders. I endorse them in general with some further comments in my brief.

On the principle of cost-sharing. I'd like to point out that while the present agreement calls for a nominal 50-50 split in cost, the actual out-of-pocket cash that the province is expected to pay is less than 10 percent of the total costs, as presented in treaty settlements.

On affordability. If treaties had been settled across the province on the same basis as the Nisga'a treaty and if all were settled within a space of ten years from that time, it would have added about 0.6 percent to the tax bill of B.C. taxpayers for 25 years. Of course, we all recognize now that treaties are not all going to be settled within ten years of the Nisga'a treaty, so that tax burden would be considerably less if you still use the basis of the Nisga'a treaty.

Land held by first nations to be approximately in proportion to population. This raised an uproar once partly due to the inflated rhetoric of some critics, vast tracts of valuable timber resources, etc. For perspective, Nisga'a land is about 85 percent of the size of Montana reservations on a per capita basis. Only 22 percent of Nisga'a land is suitable for commercial logging, and of that, 39 percent of the timber had already been logged off by 1999.

Someone has proposed that settlements should consist of cash, not land and resources. In the case of some urban bands that may be unavoidable; otherwise, such a principle borders on the immoral. It ignores the special connection aboriginal peoples have with the land, it shows complete disrespect for their lifestyles, and it is of little assistance to them in their transition from wards of the state to coping independently with the demands of modern day society.

Here are some further suggestions for principles. One, the province will negotiate in good faith and in a manner that upholds the honour of the Crown. Two, overlapping claim disputes must be resolved before finalizing treaties. Three, there must be financial accountability for funds provided by the provincial and federal governments both to the first nations membership and to the governments. Four, the province supports the federal government's declared policy on aboriginal self-government. It will endeavour to negotiate agreements that provide first nations with power and authority commensurate with the responsibilities assumed. All such agreements will contain procedures for amendment and dispute resolution. In view of the Sechelt governance experience and the amendment provisions of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, further debate about third-order governments and constitutional concrete are sterile and redundant.

Many of us have concerns about the viability and equitability of life on Indian lands. There are many horror stories, but there are also good stories we don't hear about. An American institution has even identified some of the factors that contribute to success on reservations. It doesn't always correlate with plentiful resources, but it does require good governance and an arm's-length approach to enterprises. This is a work in progress, and it will take years before all the skills are acquired and disseminated. We have to believe that the leaders speak for the majority of their people. After all, we gave their people the power of the vote. Now back off a bit, and let them make their own mistakes, as our Prime Minister once said.

For those first nations people who chafe under communal ownership or feel unjustly treated, as a last resort they can always join the mainstream society, where I hope they'll be welcomed. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Bill, for your submission this morning. I'm sure you are eager to take a few questions.

J. Les (Chair): Who would like to be first this morning? Maybe I'll go first then. Mike, do you want to be next?

Bill, with this notion of the third order of government, the Nisga'a government, as it has been laid out in their treaty versus the Sechelt model, has been operative for about 15 years. The essential difference is that the Sechelt model is a delegated form of government which more readily, in the view of many people, fits within the context of the Canadian constitution. You'll recall some of the discussion around Nisga'a was the fact it purported to set up an order of government with powers that had already been exhausted by the other two constitutionally recognized forms of government. You may come back at me and say, "Well, this is a fine, sterile, intellectual argument," yet these are also important matters, I would submit, that have to be addressed as we conclude these treaties, which will be very substantially set in constitutional terminology and, as some have said, constitutional concrete. Could you maybe give us a little bit more of your thoughts on that area?

W. Jewitt: Yes. First of all, with regard to comparisons with the jurisdiction and authority of the two agreements, the Sechelt and the Nisga'a, my point there is that if the Sechelt form of government has been seen to be acceptable for 15 years, then this bogeyman of third order of government, which in my view has been borrowed from the actual royal commission, when a truly new third order of government was proposed…. I think the only difference is that the Nisga'a can set up a court and police force if they wish, whereas the Sechelt can tax non-members of the band, including non-natives. Otherwise, their jurisdictions are identical. Surely that can't be the thing that is troubling. It leaves the point you raised, as to whether it's a devolved form of government or whether it's constitutionally protected. Remembering that these are contracts, all sides are supposed to be entered into with free will. Underlying the argument for stressing that it must be devolved is really saying that our side wants the ability to unilaterally make changes to that agreement, that contract, without necessarily the agreement of the other party. The way the Nisga'a agreement was set up, it has a very detailed, mainly complicated, dispute resolution forum. It also has clauses for how you amend it. If an amendment is desired by the provincial government, for instance, but opposed by the Nisga'a, then that goes to the dispute resolution process. It finally goes to arbitration, to arbitrators that are outside the Nisga'a jurisdiction. It doesn't require a constitutional amendment at all.

That's why I say the argument is sterile. It's that underlying belief we should be able to unilaterally make changes. Even the Liberal members of the AIP committee agreed and in their minority report quoted Justice Cory, I guess it was, setting that out.

J. Les (Chair): Another item you raised that I'd like you to perhaps explore a little bit further was the whole question of the comanagement of land and resources. In the last several days we've canvassed that with several other presenters as well. The concern is that we could end up with a province that is administratively very complex, much more so than it is today, and the effect that might have on the economy. I noted that you touched on that as well in your earlier comments this morning. Would you care to elaborate on that just a little more?

W. Jewitt: I come at it as a person whose career was in the resource industry in B.C. Businesses can deal with just about any jurisdiction, including the devil himself, as they do, I guess, in various places around the world. One of the worst horrors is this business of having to get approvals through several jurisdictions, etc. I think it would be a real horror for us in B.C. if first nations had veto power. I have no objection to them having an advisory role on various boards — say, wildlife management or various aspects that they might have a special interest in. I think that's commendable. I see this term, though, being used, and I'm afraid it might be misleading and cause misunderstandings. Maybe it was used that way with the Nisga'a, and I think it's being used that way in the Innu agreement-in-principle in Labrador currently, talking about comanagement. I hope they're just talking about it in the sense of advisory boards. Am I adding anything to it, or am I just going around in a circle?

J. Les (Chair): I think you're doing fine. Perhaps let me just make this observation. Often advisory boards are happy to serve, but they want something to do. They want some kind of decision-making ability. We're dealing with shades of grey. You said a veto would not be appropriate, but I think if you perhaps offered first nations governments some kind of advisory capacity…. Where does that lie in terms of veto, on the one hand, and simply advisory, on the other?

W. Jewitt: Going back to the Nisga'a agreement, first of all, they have the advisory boards in the Nass Valley wild…. I've forgotten. It's been several years. Anyway, the key point is that the provincial minister has the final decision-making power. He can override or ignore the advice of the board. Presumably the board is set up to perform a useful function. It's made up of people — certainly on the first nations side, on the Nisga'a side — who are closer to the action than the minister is in Victoria. Hopefully, the appointments to the board from the provincial side and the federal — where it's applicable, for fishing — also are knowledgable, hands on, on the site. Hopefully, they would be drawing up day-to-day regulations, policies, etc., that make sense. It's a devolution, if you will, to place those kinds of things in the hands of people who are most knowledgable, but if it goes quite against some broad government policy or is just plain seen to be mistaken, the minister can ignore their advice or recommenda-

tion and make his own final decision. I think that's extremely important. It doesn't mean the first nations just have a superficial role to play. If everyone is trying to work to the common good — and I think first nations people are trying to look after the interests of the territory they've always been associated with — it should work out fine most of the time.

Let me give you one possible example: the skiing development that was proposed by the Raines. I've forgotten the name of the place or whatever. Let's assume that area had all been settled and it was not on Indian land. It was just on traditional territory. Perhaps that committee might have made the same recommendation as the first nations involved — or at least some of them did — of not developing it for environmental reasons or for grizzly bear reasons or whatever. If the minister and his counsellors felt that for the overall interests of the province, its economic development and environment, it's not that bad, then the minister would have the power to approve that permit anyway.

M. Hunter: Bill, thank you very much for your very thoughtful and extensive brief, which I'm sure all of us will read over the next coming days. I had a couple of observations on your paper, much of which I agreed with and some of which I didn't, and a couple of questions, if I might. I'll start with my observation.

You reminded us that the time spent to date has not been entirely wasted but that trust has been built. I think that's partially true. Interestingly, in my community, Nanaimo, I think that trust with the non-aboriginal community has not been built at all; in fact, quite the opposite. Hopefully, one of the principles that we're going to get established is what the responsibility of the province is with respect to all its residents, particularly non-aboriginals who feel left out of the process — at least in my region — and how we get people engaged. So I'll just leave you with that as an observation.

My questions are a couple. One, I want to understand your point about compensation. Compensation has two angles here. One is compensation to so-called third parties for removal of tenures, land property rights, in a treaty process. The other is the view that a lot of aboriginals express that compensation should be paid for past mistakes. Which of those two ends of the spectrum were you referring to?

W. Jewitt: I was referring to compensation for harm done in the past. Compensation as far as third parties are concerned clearly has to be dealt with on a present-day, mainstream basis, because there are present-day economic values involved. The other is different.

M. Hunter: Okay. Thank you. In your point about interest-based negotiation versus a population-based formula, you introduced the notion of economic self-sufficiency. In your objectives section you talk about how we should facilitate and encourage participation by aboriginals in our mainstream society. I have some difficulty with the notion that in 2001 we can expect relatively small pockets of geography to be pockets of economic self-sufficiency. I live in Nanaimo. I don't consider my community to be self-sufficient, nor do I ever expect it to be. I wonder if you could comment on that theme. How do you see aboriginals being involved in mainstream society? Does it mean moving outside what is now the reserve and potentially treaty-settlement lands, or do you see treaty-settlement lands being mini–Hong Kongs throughout the province?

W. Jewitt: In terms of objective, I would say both aspects that you've mentioned there. Yes, those first nations people that wish to leave reserves and join mainstream society physically — location, etc. — need encouragement, and I hope we can find ways to do that. As far as economic self-sufficiency in, as you call it, pockets, that's going to have varying degrees of difficulty. I suppose first of all one would say they might expect to get the same level of financial support as other municipalities or regional districts do.

Yeah, that's the challenge, but as I understand it, that is one of the main thrusts of the present negotiating process. The governments' — plural — official position is: "We're not talking compensation. We're talking about the future. We're trying to build, find solutions, reconcile the two groups and trying to do it in a manner that will give them a better opportunity for economic development."

We always see everything as a problem. One easy solution, if you want to get the expenditure load away from first nations, is this idea being floated of the maquiladoras, the Mexican ones. Anyway, tax-free. Then let them do what they want. That way, even though some of them are relatively isolated, they might do fine, but what happens instantly is there's an uproar by mainstream business that you can't let them have an unfair advantage like that.

There are solutions possibly out there, but it's going to be a long-term process for sure. The final thing about that is I've read a few books on different points of view, but one thing I've noticed for all those is they advocate assimilation, if you want to put it that way, and deplore reserves. The books usually end up with a whimper, because they don't say: "Okay, do away with all reserves, but what do we do now? What are the first nations people supposed to do?" There's only one point of view I've seen expressed where it says: "Simple. You just break up the reserves and give them title to the land individually, and that's the end of it." You can give them some cash, if you want, and then they're on an equal basis with the rest of us. Well, it's not quite an equal basis, because in many cases we put those reserves in the least productive areas or districts or regions we could find, so we're not exactly starting on an even footing.

M. Hunter: Just one more issue, if I may, Mr. Chairman. The cost-sharing agreement. We've heard a number of people argue — and I've obviously seen arguments in the past — that the federal government is

entirely responsible under the Act of Union and under section 91-24 of the Indian Act. You're expressing in your brief, as I understand it, satisfaction with the current cost-sharing arrangement. Am I reading you correctly? In British Columbia there's a complicated formula that basically values land that might be transferred to aboriginal people and converts that, at the end of the day, 50-50. Do you believe that's fair?

W. Jewitt: I guess I am a naïve person, but I also come from a bit of an industry background. I agree completely with your reading on what the constitution says, but I also remember how far Garde Gardom got when he took that position in the eighties. I also know how far away Ottawa is from Victoria, and the number of other concerns they seem to have. As I mentioned in my brief, fine, take that as a bargaining position when you go into renegotiating the agreement next year, but for goodness' sake, don't get into long, drawn-out court battles about it.

I've calculated — I don't know if I've put out the mathematical formula in the brief, but at least I point out the differences — the amount of cash coming out of our pockets that we as taxpayers will have added on to our burden is less than 10 percent of the total expressed cost of any agreement. If we're trying to argue that the taxpayers in the rest of the country should pay up front right now to B.C. taxpayers the nebulous costs of some possible future sale of land that might occur ten or 50 or 100 years down the road, I don't think we'd get very far.

D. MacKay: William, if I could back up a little bit. To reiterate, the purpose of the committee is to try to establish some principles that we can put to the people of the province during the referendum. From some of the things we've heard from you today, I would suggest that one of the principles might be the self-government issue.

I just want to go back to Nisga'a with you for a moment and tell you why I think we should try to establish principles. The Nisga'a agreement scares me. There are people who live on Nisga'a land now. It was private property, but they are within the core lands of the Nisga'a treaty. Those people do not have a vote on the government that will control part of their lives. In other words, they don't have a vote within the Nisga'a government even though the Nisga'a government is going to control their lives to some degree because they happen to live within the core lands. These people have been excluded from any right to vote. I think there are 17 areas where the Nisga'a jurisdiction supersedes provincial and federal. If there's a dispute over one of these 17 issues, the Nisga'a law supersedes federal and provincial laws, which the rest of us non-native people are bound to live under. I don't know if it's an advantage or a disadvantage, but they actually supersede the two levels of government that we do have under the British North America Act. Also within the Nisga'a agreement there's a provision that allows the Nisga'a to prevent non-Nisga'a people from entering Nisga'a lands. The reason I bring that up is that if this is the type of another order of government that we want to discuss, I think the people of the province should have a say whether or not that is the type of third order of government we want to allow in any future treaties. I just wondered if you have any comment on that.

W. Jewitt: You raised a number of points. I'm glad you raised the one about voting. It gives me an in to express my idea. Yeah, it's true. Non-native holders of land in fee simple do not have a vote on Nisga'a council affairs. They're presently not being taxed by Nisga'a. In fact, as I understand it, maybe they're getting a bit of a free ride. I'm not sure whether they're taxed by the regional district or not. You might know that.

An American model is that such people pay taxes to regional and state jurisdictions, and then the tribe negotiates a grant with those government agencies to cover the cost of services provided to those people. As I understand it, I don't think the non-natives are being taxed in any way for services presently being provided by the Nisga'a.

I'm now rusty about the details of the treaty because I haven't looked at it since the thing was approved. My recollection is that those 17 points that are talked about so much all have to do with things that really affect band members, not non-natives. As far as any court systems, etc., there are appeal processes that are available to non-natives that go outside Nisga'a jurisdiction.

To me the troublesome one is taxation without representation. I know this is sort of spitting into the wind because those things are so far down the pipe, but I think a better compromise would be to permit taxation only for the purposes of serving the properties. I mean that in a broad sense, because that could include roads and the construction of, say, community facilities, etc. Nevertheless, if taxation were restricted to that, the tax levies could be determined by a subsidiary board. That has nothing to do with interfering with the affairs of the bands themselves, so there's no reason why non-natives couldn't run for board office, be a director on the board or vote for members of the board. They would then set the tax levies. There could even be a fixed percentage for band overhead, administration or whatever. I'm sure the details could be worked out if the will was there.

At the present time we have a separate bureaucracy set up to vet all tax regulations that are brought into being by bands in B.C. I've forgotten. I'm not sure whether it's across Canada. It's certainly across B.C. It's located in Kamloops. They vet all these tax rates before they're approved by the Minister of Indian Affairs. The objective there is that it has to be within a certain range of the tax rates of adjoining municipalities. It's all very elaborate and structured.

If you had a subsidiary board, you wouldn't need any of that. The local people would determine what they needed. As in the case of Westbank, the population is mostly non-native. Sure, they'd be running that. In the case of Nisga'a, probably the Nisga'a people would be in the majority on the board.

I'd like to look up this thing about prevention of entering lands. I thought access was pretty well guaranteed.

D. MacKay: There is a provision in the Nisga'a agreement that allows the Nisga'a tribal council to pass…. Well, it's a section of the act that states they can prevent non-Nisga'a people from entering Nisga'a lands.

D. MacKay: I'm not totally familiar with it. I've tried to look at the treaty and the appendices, but they're too complex for me. Parts of it scare me. That's why I wondered if this is what we're looking at as a third order of government: should not the people of the province have a say on issues such as self-government? If we do this for the 51 other treaties we're presently discussing, it's going to make it a real problem getting around this province. I just don't know.

W. Jewitt: In my Nisga'a brief, where I also opposed the referendum on the Nisga'a, I said I'd be quite happy to let the general public vote on a referendum provided they had to sit in a six-day seminar beforehand to have all the intricacies of treaties and processes spelled out for them. I said — and I meant this sincerely — I really think the average citizen is probably more willing to share and more generous of spirit than the elite of our nation, if you will. I have no qualms about that.

What I do have real difficulty with is the lack of understanding and information the general public has. Lacking that, people tend to fall back on myths and misconceptions and prejudices, etc. It happens that Mark Steyn in yesterday's National Post had a column speaking about the Prime Minister's role today. He says: "This is not the time for a leader who follows…. He knows what needs to be done; you don't." In that case he meant the term "know" in the sense of having knowledge and information that we don't, through classified intelligence sources. In our case I'd say it means because of the complexity and the legal and historical background and information that one really needs to have before you can do the right thing here.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Bill, for your presentation. You obviously spent some time thinking about this and putting it together. I have a couple of questions though. Maybe you can help me understand a little more. On page 3 in your principles, additional suggestions of principles, number 3 is: "There must be financial accountability for funds provided by…." Then I guess it's "either" or "other."

W. Jewitt: I'm sorry. Yes, that was an error there. It should be "by both the governments — provincial and federal."

B. Belsey: Then it goes on: "…both to the first nations membership and to the governments." I just don't quite understand what you mean by that.

W. Jewitt: First of all, I think first nations members have a right to hold their councils accountable for all expenditures of their councils, so included in that would be the moneys that the councils received from outside, from other governments. Band members have a right to know what came in and how it was spent. Why am I still living in a shack, if you will? I feel that because those governments provide the money, they are entitled to an accounting of how that money was spent. I know there's a view by some first nations spokesmen that that's none of the government's affair. That's the responsibility of the First Nation Council, and all they have to be accountable to is their own people. I don't agree with that view, because the money is coming from outside.

B. Belsey: Thank you. My other question is your calculation on the 6 percent of the tax bill for B.C. as a result of the Nisga'a.

B. Belsey: Pardon me, 0.6 percent. What number are you using as the cost of the Nisga'a agreement?

W. Jewitt: I did this a couple of years ago. I didn't bring the details with me, but it would have been the published costs. It would have included all the present value costs of any stream of payments. I think I took the same position as I was doing this other — anything that could be converted to out-of-pocket cash, which means that I probably did not include the value of any lands turned over. If it's important, I can check back in my figures, but I'm pretty sure that's likely what it would have been. I'm looking at it as actual money out of our pocket that I've got to pay you guys in taxes or whatever.

B. Belsey: Just in looking at those numbers, it certainly seems insignificant, when you look at 0.6 percent of the tax bill for B.C. taxpayers, but in understanding that there are 50 first nations that have submitted to the government their intentions to negotiate, the total tax bill could be 30 percent.

W. Jewitt: No, that figure is what it would be if all treaties were settled on the same basis as the Nisga'a, using, I guess you'd have to say, the population-based formula. I took the fraction, with the Nisga'a population represented, of all the status Indians in B.C. and extrapolated from that.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Mr. Jewitt, for your presentation. My question is quite straightforward. Based on one of the principles you stated that you support now — the British Columbia principles that are in process…. Looking at what's taken place with the issue of land claims in our province right now, greater than 100 percent of the land mass is under claim because of overlapping jurisdictions. One of the principles is that at the end of the day the amount of land be representative of the population, which is roughly 3.7 percent of the population of British Columbia. Is that a solid principle to maintain and continue?

W. Jewitt: I guess it's a practical way of putting, you might say, some perspective and some idea of a possible range to give people some kind of a handle on what's going on. I don't see it as something that needs to be adhered to rigidly. When you think of the urban situations, there's obviously not much, if any, land going to be available in a number of those cases, but in the more remote first nations there is the opportunity for giving reasonable-sized reserves. Having that figure gives you some kind of perspective to how things might balance out. It tries to reassure citizens that they're not going to be taking over half the land or something like that. I guess people close to the table have an overview of it. Maybe they've already got this plotted out to see what implementing that principle rigidly would amount to. I don't know. I'm not trying to evade the question. I haven't thought about it in an absolutely rigid way before.

B. Lekstrom: No, that's fine. Maybe a follow-up: the issue of the referendum. You were clear that you're opposing the referendum in that sense. I think it's fair to say that what we've done for eight years hasn't been effective in the treaty-making process. That's certainly my view of it. Half a billion dollars later we have no formal treaty signed under the process that we're talking about. I'm seeing this as a way to move things ahead for both sides. A great saying that I heard and like to use, especially in this case, is that if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. It appears that's the position we've been in with the treaty-making process.

Looking at it with an optimistic outlook, I'm looking at this as an opportunity for British Columbians to tell us as government the principles — not the individual issues within treaties but the principles — they want us to negotiate. I see that as a good thing. Like everything we deal with in life, if we look at it pessimistically, a negative attitude breeds negative results, and a positive attitude breeds positive results. I went into this with my eyes wide open. I learn a great deal every day through the different hearings and what we hear from people. I'm quite optimistic this is going to help both sides put things in the past, leave them there and move ahead for tomorrow.

That's more of a comment than a question, but that's my perspective on where I see us headed with this process.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Mr. Jewitt, with reference to your detailed submission, page 12 of your submission under the heading "Five principles." I represent Prince George–Omineca, an area where there's a great deal of hunting and fishing. Access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities is of great interest and concern to both native and non-native alike. The only thing that comes to my mind, at least in terms of other jurisdictions where this has been addressed, is the Yukon model, with which you may or may not be familiar. For the purposes of the referendum and addressing questions of principle, how is it you see these concerns addressed within the question of principle, dealing with this very specific issue, an important issue to a lot of British Columbians? How do you see that working?

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Well, our task, as you know, is to arrive at questions of principle in terms of the referendum process, and I'm just wondering how you see this fitting within a question of principle on the referendum.

W. Jewitt: This is a principle that's now in existence. It's one of the governance principles, that continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed. That's one of the principles that was enunciated in 1993. It's not mine. My comment referring to Indian land is somewhat conditional. I interpret it as meaning that government would guarantee that non-natives would have continued access for those purposes on Indian land. I'm saying that realistically there are going to be some conditions attached.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Well, that's certainly true, and it's true in other jurisdictions where there have been treaties and land claims settled. I just wondered if you've given any thought to how it is that those concerns might be addressed on the referendum within the question of principle?

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Or a general question of principle that might address those concerns in some way.

W. Jewitt: Again, it may be important to be honest and not manipulative. This principle is a bit manipulative in that I don't think it's realistic that non-natives can have equal access and equal hunting rights as natives on Indian land. In the Nisga'a agreement they have a certain quota, I guess it is, for designated species they're allowed to harvest each year, and then surpluses are available to non-natives. Of course, in the rest of the territory there's equal access, other than if there are still aboriginal rights to hunt and fish year-

round. If they're defined that way in the treaty, or however they're defined, they would continue as additional rights.

B. Belsey: We have the Treaty Commission of course. It's been negotiating with first nations for the last eight years, I believe. Do you have any comments as to how that's been going? The success or failure?

W. Jewitt: I don't have detailed knowledge. I read the deputy minister's comments that he made to your committee. I've read the Looking Forward, Looking Back report of the commission. I've read their annual reports, etc. I think some of the criticisms are valid, but one that also caught my attention was the plaintive cry from the commission that, for goodness' sake, we have a procedure to meet and revise the mandate for the commission. It has never been exercised. Nobody has ever got together with them to say: "Look, let's do something differently," or "You're not doing this or that." I think that should be done. If the view is that the commission is not doing what it should be with regard to informing the public, for instance — I think that was one of the criticisms of the deputy minister — by all means, go at them for it and give them the funds to do it or whatever.

I think they are trying to diplomatically put forward legitimate difficulties and issues that are out there and should be addressed. That's where I'm hoping, through your committee to the government, the government will in fact do its best to address these issues. The business of holding a referendum…. If it works, if you can pull it off, that's a plus. That's a positive — no question about it — if you can do it skilfully. But that's only a small part. Again, it's almost flight activity. I agree that it's constructive, but it's got to be the governments that come to grips with getting this thing going. In my brief I point out that one of your earlier respected presenters pointed out that in reality you already have a strong mandate to do what you want and to proceed with these things.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Bill, for your presentation this morning. It's quite obvious that you spend some time thinking about these things. I wish all British Columbians took an interest the way you seem to do. Thank you for being here.

In the meantime I would note that the local MLA has arrived. He announced his presence with a little ring of his cell phone, which will cost him dearly. He will be buying refreshments for the committee at an appropriate time. We have a rule in caucus: when that happens, it costs them five bucks. Welcome this morning, Bill.

K. Berg: "Deplorable and a national disgrace." These are the words of the most recent committee on health care in Canada describing the situation for the first nations. I'd like to just read it: "The state of health of aboriginal Canadians and the socioeconomic conditions in which they live are deplorable and a national disgrace." They report that 54 percent of aboriginals do not graduate from high school. The death and injury rate amongst first nations is 6.1 times that of non-aboriginals.

I'd like to tell you my theme. I want to give you some background. I'll speak to the principles and questions I'm suggesting to the committee. My name is Ken Berg. I live in Cranbrook. The theme of what I want to get to is (1) the reserve system is wrong, outdated and unworkable; (2) the treaty process is a failure; and (3) I'm going to suggest that what we might do instead is deal with the future and construct a British Columbia agreement for the oncoming generations. In effect, I'm saying, let us deal with the future and the present will take care of itself.

I'd like to now give you background to my material. The B.C. treaty process of June 28, 1991, has somehow come about to perpetuate the same reserve system as was contemplated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The treaty process is apparently satisfactory to first nations leaders, but many others will see it as divisive. It distinguishes one group from another in a country aspiring to common goals. Times have changed, and this model is unfair and unworkable in the world we have created. It will be unacceptable to many British Columbians and, as we've seen in other places in the world, a cause of continuous unrest. It will not provide certainty, finality or equality. The treaty process should be a starting point for a truly democratic process. The Nisga'a treaty, for example, was ramrodded through by a government failing to meet the fundamental criteria of good government and casting a pall of suspicion over all treaty negotiations. I'd like to read you a quotation: "Our legislative and parliamentary institutions are failing British Columbians. Unless treaties represent a common vision for reconciliation that reflects Canadian values, they are destined to fail. You're not just failing people today, you're failing future generations and sowing the seeds of injustice and discontent." That quotation referred to the Nisga'a agreement.

My suggestion is to negotiate one treaty for all British Columbians — a social contract that is looking forward continuously for seven generations and providing for continuous improvement for each person on that person's terms. Whether one chooses to be a scientist in the global village or a trapper-hunter in their own village, it's their choice. To accomplish this, we could aim to support some fundamental issues common to all of us. My suggestion here is that we set out to negotiate superior shelter, health care, educational systems and opportunity for all British Columbians. Special emphasis should be given to the children of the province regardless of race, creed or colour. We should provide special facilities, treatment and education for

first nations people on their terms. In all measures of education and health care first nations people are suffering from neglect. In my opinion, this neglect must be dealt with before any other issues and not used as a bargaining chip.

Title and governance for the land, the seas and the air of British Columbia could recognize the primacy of first nations without extinguishing Crown or private title. First nations could be given a powerful seat in all of the councils of the province. A constitutional convention could determine the ways in which property taxation would flow to benefit the children and people of this province. This is self-determination by unselfish government and demonstrates an exemplary generosity for future generations. We can celebrate the art and culture of the first nations people to build yet more bridges between all the diverse peoples of this great province. We have a potential to build the best human, natural and technological environment in the world. We are at a watershed in human affairs. Let's take proud steps now to ensure happiness and satisfaction for the next seven generations and beyond. Oral histories can reconcile our past and our future.

I'd like to just quickly read my response to the committee in terms of principles and proposed questions. The first principle is to negotiate towards one treaty in British Columbia, providing an environment for hope, happiness and success of all British Columbians as individuals, families and groups. The second principle is to provide for a greater emphasis on provision of shelter, education, medical care and opportunity for citizens of aboriginal heritage. Apologize in a meaningful way for their ill treatment. Recognize their heritage in history, art, cultural and educational programs and such other institutions as those of Indian heritage would want. Make us all proud of the heritage and people of our province. The third principle is to create a human, technological and natural environment for all the people of B.C. that will be admired and copied around the world.

My proposed questions. There's a preamble first. The Indians of British Columbia have been ill treated since first contact with colonial settlers over 200 years ago.

First question: how could a modern treaty address these wrongs which have created a poorly-educated, ill-housed citizenry with great medical and emotional problems?

Second question: would you favour the negotiation of one treaty for all British Columbians which addresses the rights of all citizens to live peaceably without undue interference by government and within a social environment which aspires to provide excellent housing, education, health care and opportunity for all?

Third question: would you be in favour of providing transitional, special financial, educational and medical assistance to first nations until it can be shown they don't need it, until they have, as a minimum, a comparable standard of life and living to non-Indians, as certified by a panel of educators, medical professionals and first nations?

Fourth and last question: how would you suggest the special assistance be defined and delivered? As cash, services, facilities, etc.?

G. Trumper: Thank you, Mr. Berg, for your presentation. Your first comments certainly hit home, because where I come from, our biggest health problem is poverty. We have a very large aboriginal community and that's where most of it is. They have the biggest call on our health care system, and it doesn't seem to improve for them. The level of housing they have…. Your comments certainly are very appropriate because a large number of the aboriginal community live in really desperate situations in my riding.

You've laid out some questions. You talk about one treaty for British Columbia. In working through to get to the end of the road so there are fair treaties for all in British Columbia, do you see the merit of getting to the end of the road by doing it by increments, such as getting an agreement on health, getting an agreement on education, which is probably the biggest tool we can give anyone, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, or by working through to get one whole package?

K. Berg: I think the answer is yes. It almost has to be incremental. We can't do everything in one big bang, as was stated in some earlier document on the same subject. It has to be incremental. I certainly agree with you that education is the key. It's the route to the future. And health care…. Obviously, if you're not healthy, you can't go to school. When we talk of education, we're not just speaking of children, we're speaking of continuous education for all British Columbians but, as I say, with special emphasis on first nations who are so far behind.

D. MacKay: Thank you, Ken. Just to follow-up a little bit with what you said, first of all I'd like to tell you that I agree with some of your comments in that the reserve system is outdated and divisive and will be as long as we have that system with us.

You talk about a common vision being needed. I would like to suggest to you that the purpose of this committee is to find a common vision for all British Columbians, not just the natives but the other ethnic people that live in this country and call Canada and British Columbia home.

You talked about a special interest for children, which I certainly support because the children are our future, and a social contract on individuals. Are you suggesting that rather than dealing with the natives collectively, we should be dealing with them as individuals and asking them on an individual basis how it is they want to resolve this ongoing problem of land

K. Berg: Yes, certainly. I have referred repeatedly to all British Columbians. I think everybody has to be involved in the question.

D. MacKay: Okay. As far as the treaty process we're in today, should we be dealing with the native people one on one? Should we ask them as individuals what they want, or should we ask them collectively through their elected people who are at the table with us?

K. Berg: I'll have to give you two answers to that. One is that I think they should decide that. My preference would be that each individual state his own case.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Ken, for your presentation. I'm just wondering about the statistics you gave us at the very beginning. Are they just a snapshot, or do you have any idea whether they're improving or getting worse?

K. Berg: No, I don't have any statistical data. What I gave came from the Senate study on health care in Canada.

B. Belsey: I'd just like to share a story with you. A lot of the Nisga'a treaty is in my riding. Being very naïve at the start of the campaign, I was invited to go and talk at a gathering in Kincolith. I got up on the stage and presented some facts like that with regards to suicide rates, health care, education and the number passing or failing in schools compared to other people. I barely got out of that hall with being stopped a number of times to remind me they feel that they are improving in all of those topics or issues that I brought up. So I learned a lesson awfully quickly.

The comments you made with regards to what treaties will look like — or race-based decisions, for want of a better way of putting it, that end up in treaties. It's a very complicated issue. I would think that if there were any fine examples of treaties, not only across Canada but anywhere in the world, we would hear an awful lot about them, and first nations would be saying: "Here's what we want." Granted, they're saying that, but it seems to vary around the province. I'm probably making more of a statement than a question. It's difficult to find agreement as to what a treaty should look like. It's even more difficult, we're finding, to establish principles that should be in a referendum that hopefully will in the end guide those that are negotiating treaties. As I said, that's more of a statement. I just want to thank you for sharing your thoughts and views.

K. Berg: I'm not talking about treaties. I'm talking about one treaty for all British Columbians. I don't think there should be treaties for small groups. They can form whatever kinds of groups they want to, with either official or unofficial status within government, whatever they want to have. There's nothing wrong with that. The Nisga'a treaty, for example, is racist based, and I think it's totally wrong. That's just one of the things that is wrong. I think that's what we have to avoid.

I think the Treaty Commission somehow has got into this trap of dealing with treaties as they've always been. Who should be on? What little pockets of the province? How should it be organized? That's what's wrong with it. That's totally wrong in this day and age. We need to have what I call a treaty — you might call it a new constitution or social contract or whatever you want to call it — that fits everybody in the province. There's nothing in the Treaty Commission's mandate that prevents that, but somehow they've gone down this narrow path which goes nowhere. As somebody said, no matter how many roads you take, if you don't know where you're going, they go nowhere. So that's the trap we're in right now.

Maybe I'll just carry on a bit more, if I may, because you almost touched on this. We're in such a mess right now that my suggestion is: let's just jump right over it, shove it all aside and go on to a plan for the next generation and the generations after that. It sometimes happens in negotiation that you get an issue so big that you can't deal with it. Then go on to something else that you can deal with.

We have the capability to define a strategy, a political plan as it were, that will work for all the citizens of the province. What I'm suggesting is maybe that's more important than dealing with land claims issues, compensation, fishing and hunting rights. There may be something more important than those things. Perhaps the first nations would subscribe to it. Defining the plan would not be hard. Getting the trust of the first nations so that it would be executed would be very difficult indeed, but if we could do it, we might have a bargaining tool that could be used.

D. Chutter: Thanks, Ken. Prior to your discussion of principles and the questions you recommended, you mentioned in your presentation certainty, finality and equality as if they were objectives to strive for within the negotiations. Is it therefore correct to say that those, as well, would be principles of yours? Could you discuss that?

K. Berg: Yes, I could discuss that. They are the things that I've thought. In my personal opinion there's nothing in human affairs that is certain or final. It's a dynamic society. As people we are dynamic. Things are always changing: our aims, our wishes, our aspirations, our abilities. So I think it's kind of pointless to put a political name on a deal and say: "Well, that's

finished." You're never finished; there's always improvement to be done. I hope I'm answering your question.

Excuse me, I think I just said in here I don't think there is certainty, finality, etc., in the Nisga'a agreement, for example. I don't think there ever would be in any kind of a treaty such as is trying to be constructed now amongst the 50 groups that have sought a treaty. So I don't think we'll ever get to those stages with them.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions of Ken? I guess you've exhausted us all, Ken. Thank you very much for coming this morning and sharing your thoughts with us.

At this point I don't have any other presenters scheduled for this morning. We have several scheduled for this afternoon, starting at 2 o'clock. However, I see a number of people in the audience here. If somebody wants to make an impromptu presentation at this point, that would be fine. Otherwise, we will simply adjourn until 2 o'clock. Ma'am, would you like to?

A Voice: Rather than an impromptu presentation, just some questions for clarity?

A Voice: Well, if I wanted to make a presentation or a submission at some point in time, I need some clarity about what you're doing.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I would ask that you talk to the lady at the back of the room, our committee consultant. The questions that you have, she'll be able to address and help you work towards making a presentation. Okay?

J. Les (Chair): If I don't see anyone else coming forward, what I'll do is recess the hearing until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to get this meeting back underway. We have our first presenter here for this afternoon, Andy Shadrack. Good afternoon.

A. Shadrack: Good afternoon. I'm going to give you a bit of background. I teach political science for a living at Selkirk College in Castlegar. I've done so since 1989. I've been a member of the Green Party since 1993. I immigrated to this country from England in 1970 and became a citizen in 1976. One of the observations I want to make to the committee is that when I was growing up in England in the 1950s and 1960s, I was growing up in an era when both the people and the government of that country were forced to recognize that there were peoples in territories all around the world they had colonized since the seventeenth century that they had to begin to treat as equals and determine their own future as sovereign peoples — allow them to do that. I moved to Regina in 1976, after I got my citizenship. I lived there for a decade, and I worked alongside and with first nations and aboriginal peoples, especially single-parent women in urban situations. From that experience what I found as a recent immigrant to this country was that I had more rights as a recent citizen than people who'd lived on this land for thousands of years. That's the context in which I want to make my presentation today.

In 1982 we adopted two amendments to the Canadian constitution, sections 25 and 35, that accorded first peoples certain inherent rights, including those that were recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763. This stated that where no treaties existed between first peoples and the Crown, the land belonged to and was for use by first nations. This interpretation, as I understand it, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw on December 11, 1997, when it ruled that the province of British Columbia had not and could not extinguish aboriginal title to lands that had not been ceded by treaty negotiations with first nations. In this context, I question and do not understand what the purpose of a referendum would be, as we are constitutionally and now legally bound to seek a reconciliation with all first peoples in British Columbia.

While I understand the Nisga'a people held a referendum after they completed treaty negotiations — because they had granted certain rights to Canada and British Columbia to lands over which they previously held title — I can see no merit in the dominant non–first nation or non-aboriginal government and population holding a referendum at this time or at any time in the future. In fact, depending on the wording of such a referendum, the courts may in fact rule it unconstitutional for the government of British Columbia to hold any referendum that ran contrary to the constitutional rights of first peoples. This might include attempts to preset the parameters of what we are willing to negotiate and settle on before we have even sat down at the table with most first nations and aboriginal people in B.C.

I also question how we who, according to our own laws and legal rulings, do not own most of the land in British Columbia can go to the negotiating table with preset conditions. While I understand that this situation, especially in the interior of this province, has led to much fear among non-aboriginal people that they will lose the ability to live and work on the land, surely the question we all now face is how to reconcile the

inherent rights of first nations and aboriginal people, including aboriginal title, with the fact that we non-aboriginal people are here also.

If this is a truly pluralistic society in which all peoples are equal, then we must begin by not demanding of first nations as the main objective of any negotiations that they agree to extinguish aboriginal title. This truly requires us non-aboriginal people to come to the table and listen to what first peoples require in order to become self-sufficient and live at ease and in dignity among us.

All around the world our European culture, through the way we have organized our economy, has degraded the environment in many places to a point where the air, land and water are almost unusable. In fact, ecosystems have been transformed to such an extent that they are no longer recognizable as to how they once functioned. Here in B.C. we have a unique opportunity to join hands with first peoples, who have lived on this land for thousands of years, and to learn jointly to steward not the land, air and water but our own behaviour towards the life that surrounds us. This would have to be a new relationship in which we non-aboriginal people must learn to organize our economy so that the traditional needs of first peoples are respected. Then together we could embark on building a new kind of economy that integrates the needs of the land, aquatic and marine ecosystems with our own. In that context, I oppose the holding of a referendum. I believe it can only further poison the already strained relationship that exists between us and first peoples. True reconciliation requires us to approach the negotiating table in a spirit of humility.

In summary, the inherent danger in our holding a referendum at this time or at any time in the future is that it simply looks like an act of bad faith and a continuance of the same relationship of dominance that has led to the creation of the situation in which we find ourselves with first nations and aboriginal peoples. In contrast, if we want to enter into building a relationship that is based on trust and mutual respect, we non-aboriginal people and our government representatives must go to the negotiating table trusting that first peoples and their representatives will come to the table in the same spirit.

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

B. Lekstrom: Thanks very much, Andy, for your presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. You began by talking about when you went out to Saskatchewan, and as a new immigrant to the country you felt you had more rights than the original people. Can you expand on that for me?

A. Shadrack: There seemed to be an awful lot of jurisdictional disputes between the federal and provincial governments as to the kinds of medical services that some first nations people could get. On one occasion I was responsible for administering an employment program, and I had a young man come to me who wanted to work. I had to go as high as the deputy minister in the ministry of Social Services provincially, and I was still refused the right to allow that person to work on the program I was administering because he was status Indian and was therefore under the federal government's jurisdiction. That young man, after living off the reserve for a year, was later thrown off provincial welfare assistance and accused of not looking for work. No one in the provincial ministry bothered to come and ask me whether he had done so. He later on ended up in jail.

It's those kinds of things that have jeopardized our relationship with first peoples. I know that in this province, for example, there are a number of first nations who won't come to the table to negotiate with us until we take off the table the whole question of extinguishment. I think we've got to look at novel ways of working. I'll give you an example in this region. In the Columbia Basin Trust we got together with the Kootenay people. They're part of the management of the trust. In other words, I think we've got to look at developing partnerships with first peoples in this province as we build towards final negotiation settlements, and I really do worry about a referendum not being the way to go.

B. Lekstrom: Just to continue briefly. Again, I'll look to you for your comments. I don't believe the process has worked effectively to date. With eight years of negotiations and half a billion dollars being spent, really we have no signed treaties in that sense under the way the B.C. Treaty Commission has operated. We're looking to the people of British Columbia. Obviously, it hasn't been working. We have to try something else. Our government and the government of the day, by law, respect that we have to negotiate treaties. This is not an issue of should we or shouldn't we. This is: we will negotiate treaties, and we want to negotiate them.

What principles do you want us to bring to the table so that we can bring a resolve to this? That's how I've approached this whole issue of the referendum. I've listened to many people speak to us and many good presentations, and although we differ sometimes with the presenters, I certainly respect their views. I'm looking to you, if you have ideas. If you're opposed to the referendum, what do you think would work to get negotiations back on track? I know trust is a big issue for both sides. Coming to the table with trust and respect is one thing, but you've got to have a clear focus of what you want to negotiate. Negotiate really means that at the end of the day both sides aren't going to get what they want. You're going to meet in the middle somewhere.

A. Shadrack: I think what I fear is that a referendum at this time will be seen as us trying to preset some conditions before we begin negotiations. I think about South Africa, and I think about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a way forward. In other words, let's get the hurt that has existed between our

two peoples out on the table. I'm not convinced that all Europeans and all British Columbians understand the hurt that many first nations people feel as a result of the experiences they've had over the last 200 years. That's the way I would go forward. We still have terrible problems that exist from the boarding schools. We still have terrible poverty. We need to get that all out on the table. I don't think we've said sorry to the extent that we need to, and I don't think the way forward will be easy. You can't eradicate something that's gone on for 200 years in a couple of years.

B. Lekstrom: Just following through on that, in closing and definitely getting back to the table, I'm going to look at this with a positive outlook. We're going to try and base it on principles, not on the issue of each individual treaty but on the basis of principles that we can negotiate on behalf of British Columbians. It will work out at the end.

You touched on something: we haven't apologized. With all due respect — I'll speak for myself — I can't apologize for something I haven't done. I certainly understand the history of the past and don't agree with what took place, but for us to apologize for something that personally I've never done and could never condone…. I believe I'm a very caring human being. I don't look at someone and evaluate them on what they are. It's who they are, and I care about that. I do have concern about that. I felt I certainly had to say that, because there were inequities, and we have recognized them.

We are committed to resolving these treaties. We're looking for direction from British Columbians, and I can't think of a better way than going out and actually giving a voice to the people we represent. That's all people, not aboriginal and non-aboriginal. We have had good participation from first nations in this, although there is a boycott per se happening. I'm happy to have that input, because it's been valuable.

A. Shadrack: When you say blueprint, I wonder how we can apply a blueprint when, say, the Musqueam would maybe want to negotiate something different than the Kootenay people would because of the different circumstances. How does a blueprint work? That's my immediate question.

B. Lekstrom: What I'm referring to is principles, not the actual issues under negotiation on the table. You have to have some principles on which to negotiate regardless of whether it's treaties or collective agreements. You have to know where you're going. I'm going to remain optimistic and look at this with the people of British Columbia understanding that's what it's about. At the end of the day, when we come out, I'm hoping we'll be further ahead, definitely.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Andy, for your presentation. I thought it was both sensitive and thoughtful. There's certainly nothing in here that I have any difficulty with, other than the repeated reference to the inherent danger in holding a referendum. Apart from that, as I say, I found it very thoughtful.

Clearly, we are committed to holding a referendum. We see it as an opportunity to inform and engage British Columbians in and around treaty issues. In fact, our experience to date has been that it has been a very healthy thing, a very good thing. Certainly, we've had a number of representations from first nations, and that has been helpful.

My question to you, though, and my concern with respect to your submission is that you hadn't got beyond your difficulties, your objection to the referendum, and thought about perhaps some questions that might be helpful in and around principles. I expect you are quite capable of doing just that given your background and your experience.

A thought that comes to mind with reference to your submission is that there might be something in and around the extinguishment of aboriginal title. That might be a principle or a question we might want to discuss in some detail. Any thoughts with respect to, as I say, getting beyond your concerns with the whole notion of a referendum and to questions that might be helpful in terms of moving forward?

A. Shadrack: I'll give you an example around extinguishment. My understanding, in terms of the Nisga'a treaty, is that certain clan houses lost 100 percent of the land they originally used. That's why I talk about the need to consider a way of jointly working together on the same piece of land.

I assume that when a people lived on a territory, they had need to use all parts of that territory. Simply to say we're going to foreclose on you being able to do that on certain parts of the territory may not allow that particular group of first peoples to continue to meet the traditional needs they had. Obviously, they're not going to necessarily want to live on the land in the same way they did 200 years ago. That's not what I'm arguing.

If people want to maintain traditions around collection of herbs or certain foods, those things may occur only on certain portions of the land. If you immediately come from a point of view of extinguishment, as the current document talks about, where it says the amount of land will be proportional to their population, then I see that as problematic. It's a question of joint management, which I see as an important principle that we need to hold open here.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Andy. Just adding to the questions and your comments, if — and I'm not saying we should — we look at the number of first nations in our province, and say it's roughly 4 percent, then they should own 4 percent of the land. That's one extreme. The other extreme is that first nations have indicated roughly 110 percent of the land is their traditional land. What we're trying to find is something down the middle. Can you help us?

A. Shadrack: I think it's a misnomer to talk about 110 percent claimed in the sense that there were overlapping territories. I live in the West Kootenays, and when you look at a map, you see that there is an overlap between Ktunaxa Kootenay and the Shuswap. In other words, they jointly fish certain rivers. They jointly hunt in certain areas.

The confusion is that as Europeans we have one way of viewing the land and wanting to hold title to it. First nations people have another way of looking at the land, and that's the problem I see at the heart of the debate over settling land claims. What I hear some first nations people say is that they don't want to give up the right to have a say over what goes on over all the land so that they can continue to carry out certain traditional functions. What I say is: "Can we reconcile our own view of looking at the land with theirs so that our society can move forward together?"

B. Belsey: If I understand you correctly, then we have to be prepared to share all the land, but I don't think that would satisfy what first nations want. They want entitlement to their land. I don't see how we share if one or the other wants entitlement.

A. Shadrack: Well, I understand right now the Ktunaxa people in the West Kootenays are looking at a different model, where some kind of sharing would take place. I mean, I've not heard any first nations people say that private land is part of the negotiations. It's not a question of whether they want us to leave. It's a question of how we reconcile our different needs as people. We have certain economic needs. They also have spiritual and other attachments to the land. That's true of people in other parts of the world too.

J. Les (Chair): Another question, maybe in somewhat the same vein, Andy. You talk about the needs that various people have with respect to the land and the fact that we as British Columbians have certain economic needs. One of those very central economic needs is clearly defined rights to the land. That sort of underlies the way our economic society is organized. You seem to be advocating for a more communal approach to ownership of the land, yet in economic terms I would put to you that this has proven disastrous in so many countries, where you take away the right to private, clearly defined ownership of the land. I simply put that to you to see what your thoughts more directly are in that regard.

A. Shadrack: Well, in one sense we view 90 percent of the land in this province as held by the Crown. Many first nations people say: "Well, that's ours, because we haven't surrendered title." So the amount of land that is held privately is about 10 percent if 90 percent of the land is Crown land — right?

A. Shadrack: So is it your intention to expand the amount of land that's actually held privately in fee simple beyond the 3 percent? Can't we then work out a way of jointly administering the other 97 percent, if it is called public or of aboriginal title? Do you see what I'm posing?

J. Les (Chair): Well, clearly you would be aware that there are other interests in land besides fee simple ownership — for example, interests in mining, in forestry and other examples of that nature. Those, too, need to be clearly defined for an economy to be able to function effectively.

A. Shadrack: Yes, but I also think we need to do that mining and logging in such a way that we take the needs of first peoples into account. That's what I'm suggesting. If we're going to reconcile our two cultures, then that is what has to take place. I haven't heard first peoples say they want all logging or all mining stopped in this province. We've got some real contentious issues. Sun Peaks is a good example of where the two cultures, the two ideas clash. That's what we have to try and reconcile. I hear what you're saying, but are you suggesting that what we need to move to is areas of the province that are clearly defined only for logging and mining?

J. Les (Chair): No, no. That's not what I was saying. What I meant to say and what I believe I said is that these non–fee simple interests in land, however, do have to be predictable and clearly defined to enable people to make business decisions. It is fair to say, as well, that in the process of defining how that works, we have to include the aboriginal people. In many cases that is being done very successfully. Even then, once we've reached the point where the aboriginal people are part of the process, you need predictability for an economy to be able to function. If that predictability and protection of law is not there, then, as I said earlier, international examples abound where your economy breaks down — to the detriment of everyone, ultimately.

A. Shadrack: I would point to the example of what's been worked out in Clayoquot, where government, industry and first nations reached an agreement.

J. Les (Chair): Some might argue that it has been successful over the long term. I'm not as familiar with Clayoquot as some others are. In any event, are there any other questions? Thank you for coming.

P. Floyd: Thank you for coming to Cranbrook to give us an opportunity to speak to this issue. I've been involved with the first nations of British Columbia since 1967 as a nurse, as the adoptive mother of three Stó:lo Indian children and now the grandmother of six, as an employee and as a friend. In the past 25 years much of my involvement has been with the seven

bands of the Ktunaxa nation here in the Kootenays and in Montana and Idaho. Most recently, until my retirement this past summer, I was an employee of the Tobacco Plains band of the Ktunaxa nation at Grasmere.

I would prefer that there not be a referendum on this issue. However, it's clear that there will be one, so I'm not going to fight that argument. You've decided, and it's obviously the choice of the majority, but I wonder whether the citizens of British Columbia have enough knowledge of the issues and the historical background to be able to make an informed decision on referendum day. I hope this government will conduct a vigorous public education campaign before the vote.

In general, the media have failed to provide many facts. There has been a lot of rhetoric, a lot of fearmongering, a lot of polarization but precious little accurate, unbiased information. It's laudable that the government has agreed to provide funds to the First Nations Summit to enable them to state their case, but it isn't enough. Information from the First Nations Summit will be seen by many as mere propaganda.

If this government truly wants workable, fair and affordable treaties with first nations, it is essential that the public, the citizens of British Columbia, understand what is at stake and why in this year of Our Lord 2001 we are dealing with issues that were settled everywhere else in Canada more than 100 years ago. British Columbia refused to enter confederation unless the Canadian government agreed not to conclude any treaties with B.C. first nations. That fact is something few citizens of B.C. are aware of. That was the wind our ancestors sowed. Now we stand to reap the whirlwind.

It is vital that the public understand not only what the cost of enacting the treaties may be but also what the cost of not enacting the treaties would be. The issue may not be what is affordable. Rather, it may be what is more cost-effective in the long run. This involves considering the many costs of maintaining a population in poverty and unemployment for want of an economic base. Contrast that with the benefits of permitting the same population to access economic development leading to employment, resulting in greatly increased disposable income with which to buy new vehicles, new furniture, new houses and so on.

It is equally important that the public know in detail what is being negotiated. For example, I continue to be amazed by the number of people here in the East Kootenays who are absolutely convinced that when the Ktunaxa nation achieves a treaty, the owners of private property, the farmers and ranchers and small landholders, will lose their land. This, of course, is untrue. Private property is not and has never been on the negotiating table. Nevertheless, the myth persists. So do many other polarizing, fear-instilling myths, modern day equivalents to the old "Circle the wagons; the Indians are coming" siege mentality. It is our local tragedy here in British Columbia that the Indians aren't coming. The Indians are here; they've always been here. This is their homeland. That is what the treaty process is about.

If this government truly wants its citizens to be able to vote on the principles that should guide their government in treaty negotiations, an honest, effective public education campaign before the vote is absolutely essential. Such a public education campaign would generate the questions to be asked in the referendum, and they would be true questions about the real issues rather than the rhetoric that has characterized so much of the public debate thus far.

I respectfully suggest that the principles that should guide the B.C. approach to treaty negotiations are these: honesty, openness, fairness and respect. Honesty: to recognize the historical fact that our ancestors took this land from the first nations without compensation. It is long past time that we started paying for it. To quote Elie Wiesel, we are not to blame for the mistakes of the past, but we will bear the responsibility for the consequences, whether we want to or not. Openness: to ensure that every citizen knows what is going on and why. Fairness: to leave no room for grief. This magnificent province has plenty for all, and if we share it fairly, all will prosper. Respect: for each other and for the cultures, sensibilities and aspirations of the first nations.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Patricia, for that presentation. I suspect there will be questions.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. You raised the question of education or getting the information out. I come from Vancouver Island, and my riding includes the Clayoquot. Our biggest problem in the aboriginal communities is poverty. They've been negotiating for seven years or so and have a huge debt. They turned down their agreement-in-principle. It was initialled by their negotiators. The reason it was turned down was they didn't know what was going on. They hadn't been informed as individuals.

I have a real concern that over those years we didn't do a good job in getting the attention of people. Maybe the information was there, but until it hits you here, you're not listening or not hearing. Have you any suggestions as to how we do get that information out not only to non-aboriginal people but to the aboriginal people themselves? Many individuals don't really understand what treaty is all about. You've been involved for many years. Do you have any ideas?

P. Floyd: I can't speak for the Nuu-chah-nulth because I don't know how they're coping. I know that many years ago they were among the most progressive in the sense of keeping their people informed. I don't know what's happened to break that down. I think it's pointless. I know that when this treaty thing was first started up, there were public hearings and nobody came. It's pointless to have public hearings. Nobody wants to go to public hearings very much. I think the government is in the fortunate position of being able to exercise a fair amount of influence, not pressure, on the media. You spend a lot of money on the media, so

maybe they'll listen to you. We're not being fairly dealt with by the media. They're not informing us adequately.

I heard a comment about Sun Peaks. That is an issue of the Douglas treaties. Now, in all the reporting that I've listened to for the last six months, I've only heard the Douglas treaties referred to once in connection with Sun Peaks. It's quite a different issue than an ordinary land claim.

That's the kind of misinformation that's allowed to go on. It's more sensational to talk about Gustafsen Lake and the fear and terror that went on up there than it is to talk about the real issue. Why did the people feel driven to take that stand at Gustafsen Lake? I think public education needs to be a combination of press releases, advertisements in the paper and ads on television and radio that present the true facts, not just scare-mongering.

I'm a therapist; I'm a healer. There's a woman, a psychotherapist, who claims that our society is an addictive society because everything we do is polarized. I think this is what's happening here, and it's very tragic. That's why I fear the referendum. It's not an issue of either/or. It's got to be an issue of both/and. Co-management works. Co-management of the forests works; co-management of resources works. As the previous speaker said, no first nation is asking us to leave. They're not hollering at us: "Go back to where you came from." They are saying they would like a level playing field. I had a Ktunaxa elder tell me one time: "We never fought with our neighbours over land, because the land was too sacred to fight over." That's the principle that underlies their approach to the treaty negotiations.

Informing the public. Just make sure that when the press or the media report on something, they get it right, they get it accurate, and they do the background. With these 15-second sound bites it's no wonder this world is going crazy. That would be my suggestion: to encourage the media to be accurate, comprehensive and thorough. Maybe once a week have an article in the Vancouver Sun or in whatever newspaper gets the most attention. It's probably the Province. People really don't know what's at stake.

The band I was employed by has a long, long history of working cooperatively with its neighbours. It's a remote little community; it's a scattered population. If you bunch them all together, Inuits and whites alike, there's enough people there to get some services, whereas if one or the other group tried to do it, there aren't enough people there to get anything. They had this long, long cooperative history, and once the treaty negotiations started, that cooperation began to fail because of the siege mentality. "We're going to lose the ranch; we're going to lose the farm."

Now, I haven't heard of anybody at Tobacco Plains say they want the ranch. They don't. They just want a fair interest in what's going on. It's very sad to see this kind of polarization, and unfortunately it's encouraged. It's encouraged by the media. It's encouraged in lots of ways because it makes better news stories, I guess. I don't know.

B. Belsey: Patricia, thank you very much for your presentation. I'm probably one of those British Columbians who is on a real learning curve here, trying to understand the issues and working as best I can on principles for our referendum. You mentioned in your presentation here that British Columbia refused to enter into confederation unless the Canadian government agreed not to conclude any treaties with British Columbia first nations.

B. Belsey: I'm sure it is. I'm just wondering if I could find out more information about this: where it is, where you got it.

P. Floyd: Oh, you could look at LaViolette, The Struggle for Survival. Also, Sir John A. wanted that railway out to the coast here in the worst way. They were negotiating treaties on the prairies at the time, and British Columbia refused to even discuss having the railway come through or discuss entering confederation until they promised that there wouldn't be treaties in B.C. That's an historical fact.

B. Belsey: I asked somebody in a presentation yesterday why we only had one treaty in this province and nothing else. I'm going to put all this stuff together so that I do understand more.

P. Floyd: I would remind you that you also have the Douglas treaties. It took the tribes that were involved in signing the Douglas treaties a hundred years to get their case to the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court ruled that those treaties were valid.

J. Les (Chair): Just another thought, Patricia. I'd like your thoughts on this. In most of the rest of Canada treaties were signed many years ago, and yet, as I have observed, I'm not sure that the aboriginal reality in the rest of Canada is any better than the reality of aboriginal life in British Columbia. In other words, does treaty-making automatically lead to an improvement in the situation? To take it one step further, do we need to deal with fundamental matters like the Indian Act as well?

P. Floyd: Oh, yes. But I think the Indian Act has to be left to the Indians — don't you? I mean, the biggest problem of the Indian Act has been that the dominant culture has decided it knows what's good for the Indians. That's what the Indian Act has created. It's created a separate category of people defined in law.

J. Les (Chair): I would suggest that the Indian Act's biggest problem is its very existence.

P. Floyd: Except it's something like you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Indian Act is the only protection right now for first nations. Until there is some other protection — for example, a treaty — then the Indian Act had better stay.

Goodness knows, anybody who watched the terrible calamities down there in Wisconsin and out at Klamath in Oregon when the United States government tried to terminate the tribes down there…. They terminated two. One was a very self-sufficient tribe in Wisconsin — totally self-sufficient, never took a penny of federal funds. They were terminated, and within ten years they had lost every square inch of their land because the predators moved in, and these people couldn't pay taxes, didn't know about taxes. The other one was the Klamath. They are still trying to get reinstated as a federally recognized tribe. The termination policy simply did not work. So that's not going to work here. That's what Mr. Nault is planning to do, and it's not going to work.

I've lived in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. as well as in the three western states. The treaties do count for something. The treaties do provide protections that are not existent here in B.C. For one thing they force the federal government to be a little bit more accountable. For another thing they're legally recognized documents. The Tobacco Plains band, for which I worked, lives on a 4,500-acre reserve that is, on the map, Tobacco Plains IR 2. Where did No. 1 go? Nobody's ever been able to find it. There had to have been, originally, a No. 1, but it's vanished. It's been expunged from the records because there were no treaties. There was no legal protection. So the Indian agent, Mr. Phillips — may he rest in peace — did away with IR 1 and was able to get away with it because there were no legal controls. The whole history of the first nations in B.C. is a searing indictment of the federal government.

I lived on Vancouver Island. I served the Saanich Peninsula tribal council for several years. We had a saying: "Every time the government surveyor comes around, the reserve shrinks by ten feet on every side." There was one place where you could actually see the fence line, the pile of rocks in the field where the fence line had moved in and moved in and moved in. There's no reason for the first nations to trust this government, but I think a spirit of mutual respect and not fear…. It would not be in the interests of the first nations to do anything destructive to the dominant culture. It wouldn't be in their best interests, and they know that.

Here in this area we have two different forest areas. Part of it's a matter of personality. When the treaty process began, one of the forest districts came to the tribe and said: "We want to do a comanagement process with you. We want to develop a way of doing this." They've got a process that's working very well. Down here at the south end they went out and started granting leases on Crown land as fast as they could and clear-cutting everything that they couldn't grant a lease on. By the time the treaty is negotiated at the south end of the East Kootenays, there's going to be nothing there for the people just because of the personality of the particular bureaucrats involved and because there hasn't been firm, absolute instruction handed down from the top to say: "You will not do this." Part of it is looking at how the process is working now, and it isn't working very well down here in a lot of ways.

The Indian Act is a pretty ugly document, but like I say, it's the only protection they've got, and I would feel very nervous if the Indian Act were done away with tomorrow. I would tell my kids to go down and get to work in the United States, where they'd be safe, because they wouldn't be safe up here.

At this point I have one more person who wants to make a presentation. If there's anyone else who would like to make a presentation this afternoon, I would encourage you to register with Tamara at the back of the room.

M. Campsall: I'm scared silly. The first thing I did about this was read in the newspaper last night that this was going to happen today. I've nothing prepared, only my thoughts and what I've heard here today.

There's a lot of polarization, and I don't think it's the news media's fault. There are a number of cases that just incense some people, such as the native fellow who was charged with pit-lamping, shooting deer in the dark. Other people can't do that. The judge said that was all right, because that was his native culture and what they did in days gone by. The truth of the matter is they didn't have a gun, they didn't have a new truck, and they didn't have a lamp. That wasn't what they did. They didn't hunt in the dark.

I've heard things here today. We all go by what we think we know. Not all of it is correct. I don't believe the native people here originated here. I believe they were chased out of Alberta. They did fight over each other's territories, and they did take slaves. They did do many of the things that are outrageous and that other people have done in the world. They had never done these things. It was all brought on by white people.

My mother and father lived next to this reserve. My father was adopted into the tribe as an adult. His name was Nupdeh. He and my brother can speak their native tongue. I have many native friends, and I've socialized with them. I don't believe that everything we're hearing is accurate or else they're not telling me the truth.

One thing has bothered me for quite some time. I was in Nova Scotia. Somebody mentioned the National Post. I've kept this newspaper where the court is accused of distorting history. It has snowballed ever since. Dr. Stephen Patterson, a professor of North American colonial history at the University of New Brunswick, said Justice Ian Binnie, in writing the majority decision, used selective evidence from him to buttress the Supreme Court ruling that gave east coast natives the right to fish year-round without licences. In a 5-2 decision, overruling two lower courts, the Supreme Court concluded that British treaties of 1760 and 1761 gave the Mi'kmaq the right to catch and sell fish for their day-to-day needs. Dr. Stephen Patterson said that Judge Binnie failed to mentioned that he also testified that the Mi'kmaq and British signed the treaties with the clear understanding that natives would be subject to the laws of the Crown, just like everybody else. That's how it started, and it's gone now so that things are not fair in both ways. Sometimes it's the native people who aren't treated fairly, and sometimes they get extra privileges, and they certainly don't pay for the crimes the same as the other people.

Actually, I believe I'm a native Canadian. I was born here, and I think that's what makes you a native. We all know that their forefathers came from Asia and South America, the same as ours came from other countries. In the beginning they weren't here either. They were the first here, and in those days colonialism was done the way it was done. None of us would do it that way today. I think that if we support the 3 percent of the natives…. We want to give them a deal on the land at what it's worth today. We're the ones who developed it. We made it worth what it is today. Not that I think they should not be treated fairly, I just don't think we owe them 110 percent of B.C.

I heard some things here today about reserves. I believe that if we keep reserves and carry on the way we have in the past, my great-grandchildren will be in a revolution. I believe all Canadians should be treated fairly. I think the same laws should apply to all. I think when they give them self-government, they're separating us. We're repeating history. We're separating them. We're making them have special laws that we don't qualify for ourselves, and when they break our laws, they don't get the same punishment because of their background. Well, I've been in their background, and I wouldn't say it was all a white man's fault. Many of the crimes that were committed on them they did to each other years ago. We didn't invent those crimes. I'm not saying we aren't responsible or the people that did it aren't responsible, but like Blair I don't feel that I should be punished for it. I didn't do it, and I never would, and neither would they.

Mr. Jewitt mentioned hunting and fish on Indian land. They want to have their separate lands that they can hunt and fish on that we can't, but then they also want a portion of the fishing goings-on down at the coast this year.

I don't know what to call us. What are we? If we're not native, what are we? I can't say white people. There's Chinese, Japanese, Ukrainians — there's everybody. What am I?

M. Campsall: Okay. So are they, but try to differentiate between them and us. The goings-on with the fishing wars down there, where people have their whole life's work and money tied up in boats and have to sit back and watch the native people do all of the fishing, take it for their native fishery…. Then it was exposed on TV — and I'm not saying they're all bad or anything like that; please understand that — that there are cases where they're sold for $5 a fish. Well, it's gone up. I used to buy them for $5 when I lived in Burns Lake and they would sell them out of the trunks of their cars. They would take enough fish until they went sour, and you had to check them to make sure they weren't sour yet. Like I say, it's gone up. We used to pay $5. They exposed it on TV, and nobody was ever charged. I think we need the media to let people know what's really going on. The news media tried to have an interview with three of the chiefs in Canada who are making over $200,000 per year, but their people are living in poverty. One of them makes more than Prime Minister Chrétien, and his tribe is in poverty. If they want the white man's assistance, Canadian assistance, then they should be willing to be accountable. To this day many of them are still saying: "It's none of your business what we do with your money." This is what makes polarization.

You guys have a big job ahead of you. I hope you can somehow make it fair but not be swayed by some sad stories, because everybody, both sides, has them.

One of the questions we have to address is the bloodlines. When the Nisga'a agreement came out and they gave the 800 number, I phoned and got a copy of it. I asked the lady: "How far does it go?" Native people now have blond hair and blue eyes and are professionals. That's great, but they want the rights of natives, and some of them barely have a speck of native blood in them. There's no limit to how it goes. It could be 1/64. As long as they can trace their lineage, they're native and get the perks of the natives. To me that's not right. I think it should go to half-and-half or something. Find out what it should go to, but if we go as we have been, inevitably we will all be broke, because there'll be more of them than there will of us, because it's forever. It should come to an end somewhere.

When they're born, my understanding is that they're entitled to land, and they get a house somewhere down the road. I'm not saying they don't pay anything for it, but they sure don't pay what we do. When I was born, I didn't get a house and I didn't get land. It's very difficult to get into that situation. I think I'm digging myself into a hole here.

It just seems to me that in Canada and B.C. we should all be equal. I don't think anybody should be privileged — not us nor them. I think everybody should be fair.

D. MacKay: First of all, thank you for appearing before us this afternoon. I hope you're a little bit more relaxed now than when you first sat down. You did a very good job speaking and giving us your thoughts, which is what we are looking for as a group, thoughts from different individuals. We're getting a broad section of views on native issues, and I certainly appreciate yours.

One of our objectives is to come up with some principles that will help with the treaty process. Just from listening to you, I have highlighted three of the things you touched on: the pit-lamping issue, the lack of fairness, and the aboriginal fishing strategy, which is rights based on race. If I rolled all three of those into one, I would have to say — I might be putting words in your mouth — that one of the principles coming from you might be that at the end of this process we have to be treated as equals. Would this be one of the principles that we should put to the people: that there not be another level of government to treat the natives differently than non-native people?

M. Campsall: Absolutely. I feel that if they have self-government down the road, we're in for way bigger troubles than we've ever come into. In fact, speaking to them — I've talked with them — they have different rules amongst themselves. They have their own prejudice amongst their tribes. I think that if you don't take it fair and square with all aboriginals and if you do listen to some have this and some have a different point of view, as was mentioned earlier, you're never going to come to a process. I think everybody has to be treated equally.

M. Hunter: Maureen, thank you. When you're not used to sitting in front of a microphone, I know it takes courage, and I appreciate what you said. I don't have any questions. I think you've expressed your views very eloquently and very clearly.

I do want to let you know that Mike Hunter has some knowledge of the history of this province and the country. I spent most of my working life in the coastal fishing industry, so I am aware of some of the issues that you talked about.

I also want you to know that I also understand, because of my background and because I'm doing my homework, that there are some obligations that are imposed on British Columbia as a result of some legal issues. There is a potential burden on Crown title in this province. We have to deal with it.

You started by expressing some concern that not all the facts are out there. I want you to know that from my perspective — and I think it's true of all of my colleagues — we are being diligent in making sure that recommendations we will make to government on the questions that might be asked on principles, I am confident, are going to be founded on an understanding and a debate amongst us about facts. I think we should put your mind at rest on that score.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. In listening to the input we've had from everybody, whether they agree with the position of where we're going on this or not, we are trying to put together the principles so that we can move on with the treaties. Obviously, under the constitution there are things we simply have to do. We can't change those things.

Would one of the principles be around accountability? I heard you talking about some of the issues about finances, etc. Certainly, we're all aware of certain situations. Would that be an issue of accountability to the first nations themselves or to them and the rest of us?

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Maureen. I think it's important to have an opinion, and you've shared your opinion. I think it's also important to have an informed opinion. I'm just wondering if you've read any books on aboriginal issues other than the newspaper.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Perhaps we can get you some background materials that might be helpful in terms of why we're here and what we're doing.

M. Campsall: I've spoken with quite a number of aboriginals, and I think I have a good relationship with them, so I don't think I'm coming from nowhere.

I see no other speakers on the speakers list at this point, so I'll simply recess the meeting temporarily until we have further presenters come forward.

J. Les (Chair): All right. We will reconvene the meeting. The next presenter is Don Mazur. I think that's the pronunciation. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

J. Les (Chair): I'd prefer you didn't holler. The microphone will look after the volume.

M. Mazur: Well, I'm going to express my views to start with. You know, I'm not proud of what my ancestors did, and I don't think the native people were proud of what their ancestors did. What matters now is the people who were born — me and you, regardless of nationality, which is very important. I was born in B.C. They were born in B.C. Maybe you were born in B.C. I don't know what this aboriginal deal is doing in here. We should all have the same rights — right? I don't feel I want to give up my land. It's my land, their land. It's everybody's land — is it not? Well, isn't it? It belongs to me. All my family feels the same way. Why should we be giving up something that belongs to us all?

I feel like I'm being discriminated against as it is. They have better rights than I have, because they don't pay the same taxes as we do, which I don't feel is fair. We all have the same chance when we come to B.C. I was born in Vancouver.

Personally I think you're going about it the wrong way if you think you're going to split B.C. into 50 different parts. I believe it won't work, and I know it won't work. In the first place, I don't think the people would let it be split up. You're going to push something in here that shouldn't be in here. I don't want to see a war get started or anything like that, but whenever you get to where somebody's getting more than somebody else, friction starts.

That's just about all. That's my opinion, and that's what I think should be done.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you, Don. Any questions from anyone? Thank you for coming.

D. Brown: Thank you for the opportunity to speak with this committee today. My name is Dave Brown. For the last 20 years I've been a registered professional forester in British Columbia. One of the roles of my profession is to advise government on issues and matters that relate to forest management and the forest industry. I believe the topic we're discussing here today has tremendous impact on that.

I haven't prepared anything other than some quick notes. The nature of the business these days is that you tend to go from one meeting to the next with always little time to prepare. I'll make my presentation as a professional forester today. I also just want to expand on some of the background I've had personally. After being involved in northern Alberta with a lot of forest industry and first nations issues for about six or seven years, I returned to the Kootenays. I'm currently the administrative forester for Tembec Industries, located here in the Kootenays. We employ about 1,500 people directly, 550 or so in terms of indirect employment. We have two sawmills here, a value-added plant, a pulp mill.

In my role as an administrative forester I tend to be involved a lot with forest policy. I've held this position since 1994, not only being involved with forest policy issues but also forest stewardship issues. Also, building better relationships with the local Ktunaxa-Kinbasket has been another focus of my job. I've been representing the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association for the last seven years on treaty-related issues. As part of that role, I've been a member of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries aboriginal affairs committee. For the first three years we met monthly. We're now down to about quarterly meetings.

I've also been asked to be the chair of an ad hoc group of about 13 forest licensees that are directly affected by the local Ktunaxa-Kinbasket treaty. As such, I've been involved with the local treaty since virtually the beginning, prior to the establishment of the regional advisory committee. I was contacted initially to help sort of formulate that back in 1994. I've basically been at every one of the RACs since then, every one of the main tables since then. After all that involvement over the last seven to eight years I probably feel less capable to provide you with any advice in terms of what would be a referendum question, or menu of questions, than I was seven years ago.

You'll probably recognize over the course of your hearings and your eventual report to cabinet that the treaty process is extremely complex. It's evolving. Over the last seven or eight years I've seen better relationships as a result of the current community process established here, albeit sometimes it is hard to get people's attention. For the last six to seven years we've really been talking a lot about process issues. We're only now getting to the meat and potatoes of the discussions. We're in the AIP stage. I think it's been hard to keep people's attention through that. Nevertheless, I would have to say that I do support the current treaty process as it is in general. I think there are some opportunities to strengthen the general public and third-party interests in the RAC and the various processes, although my personal experience has been that I've had good access to the federal and provincial negotiators when need be.

I think that at the end of the day we're probably all wanting to see the government have relatively unencumbered access to the lands and resources of this province. I think I've said this already, but I'm not really surprised that it has taken us as long as it has to get as far along as we have. There are some very serious discussions that need to take place. There are some issues of trust that we talked about in other presentations. That does not happen overnight. This government has a mandate already to proceed with the treaty negotiations. I'm not so sure that you can really get

more specific or less specific than the current principles that are outlined on this page. I think they're a good start.

That's basically the sum of my presentation. Like I said, I didn't have anything prepared. I just wanted to provide some comment to you while you were here in town, and I didn't want to lose the opportunity. Thanks.

D. MacKay: Dave, you've been sitting on regional advisory committees for quite a while now. I think you said you're down to sitting quarterly.

D. Brown: Oh, no. That was the COFI aboriginal affairs. The regional advisory committees meet on a regular schedule according to the work progress in the local treaty.

D. Brown: A month and a half ago, I believe. We've got another meeting coming up fairly soon. There was a bit of a slowdown happening in those meetings leading up to and during the election.

D. MacKay: Is that a fairly broad-based guess on the number of times you meet? Would it be monthly at the main table? I'm just trying to get how often you actually met at the main table.

D. Brown: Well, the main table has a schedule that's worked out between the province and the local first nations. They have a work progress that suggests that this is when they're going to meet, and they make those arrangements. Usually the regional advisory committee meets the day before each one of the main tables. Is there some confusion there?

D. MacKay: No. So the main tables are meeting about once a month. I'm just trying to get some idea of how often you meet, because it has been suggested that perhaps there should be a time limit on this to maybe speed things up. Maybe if there was a time frame to work under, it might move things along a little faster.

D. Brown: Certainly you bring up an interesting point. What happens — I feel, anyway — is that the majority of the real work, when negotiations and discussions happen, is at the side tables. The side tables are typically closed to observers. The decisions that are made at the side tables are usually brought to the main tables, which, as I'm sure you're aware, are open sessions where observers can observe the discussions and decisions that are being made at the main table negotiation. Depending on the topic and all kinds of specific issues related to this particular treaty, the side table will have their work agenda, try to meet that and then bring their discussions forward to the main table for some final decision.

D. MacKay: I'd just like to follow up with one further question. Sitting on a side table on a regional advisory committee, do you feel you are being listened to? Do you see any results of the work you're doing? I think back to the Nisga'a treaty and what happened there. I just wondered if you're being listened to and if you see results of your work.

D. Brown: Yes and no. Yes, we're being listened to. Let me qualify that. Yes, there's some good work that's being done there and some good response. The regional advisory committee is a collection of many of the third-party interests. I think it provides a good opportunity for people that choose to get involved in the treaty process and provide advice to the negotiators. I've also found — and it's always been my opinion since the beginning of this — that should there need to be from time to time the opportunity for any particular interest — whether it be the forest industry, tourism, health, what have you — to be able to have direct access of their own to the federal or provincial negotiator…. In certain cases with this treaty I've needed to do that and have had access and been able to work with the negotiators on a particular topic.

I still would say, though, that I think the side tables and the commitments to opening the process further are issues that I would really like to see come from this new government.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation, Dave. It's helpful to hear your perspective as a professional registered forester in your industry. Tembeck is a big player in this part of the world. That's helpful.

You made reference to the existing principles. Presumably those are the principles that are contained within the terms of reference for the current treaty process. Are those the principles to which you are referring?

D. Brown: The provincial government's principles as they appear at the front desk.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Oh, I see. Okay, thanks. So you understand, then, what it is we're doing in terms of principles?

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): As a starting point for some folks who ask us, "What is it you're looking for in terms of principles?" we often refer them to the principles that are enumerated in terms of the B.C. Treaty Commission. I think there are 18 or 19 enumerated there.

In any event, a question to you then, Dave, with respect to principles and what it is we're doing here: are there principles that you would, from your perspective, perhaps want us to emphasize or highlight? If so, how is it that we might do that in terms of framing questions that would serve to highlight principles enumerated there that might benefit this part of the world?

D. Brown: I don't envy you your task on that — framing the question for that. I expressed my personal opinion. I think these principles that B.C. has put forward are probably as clear as they can be. They have been around, I understand, since about 1993. I think they provide a good framework. There is one principle in there that talks about the opportunity to be heard. I've already expressed my concern there. I think the current process as it stands with the RAC, the access to the federal and provincial negotiators, is a good start, but I think it could be strengthened. I don't see that as a referendum question type of an issue at this point. Perhaps the committee may at the end of this. I don't know.

D. Chutter: Dave, my question is actually very similar to Paul's. From that list, with your experience over the last six or seven years and your involvement, are there any principles that haven't been supported well by any of the parties around the table? A similar question would be: are there any principles that you could suggest that should be added to that list?

D. Brown: I'm just taking a look at them quickly. I think the aspect of the financial responsibility for treaties is an issue that may not have been framed or looked at as closely as it could have. Certainly, as discussions move along, I think the government needs to clearly look at all the financial aspects of what happens to be on the table for discussion as we move through every agreement-in-principle. British Columbians would probably like to feel that at the end of the day we can all live with whatever is decided from the financial aspect.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation from your perspective. One of the issues that has been brought up by many presenters is how we are going to get people's attention on this whole issue. Having sat on RACs and TACs for the last seven years, do you see a role in the RACs — the regional advisory councils, for those who don't know what that means — in that aspect of informing the public? I don't know whether yours operates the same as we do, but we were told at the RAC committee that unless specifically told we could do it, the information that we received…. We could go back to the people we were representing with the information, but we actually couldn't talk to the public about it. It was rather convoluted. So 20 of us go back to our various communities or whatever and talk about what's happened, but actually we couldn't talk to the public themselves about it — until somebody opened their mouth. Then they got banned from that RAC table. Is there a place for the RAC to be part of getting that information or the attention of non-aboriginals and aboriginals on the treaty process?

D. Brown: Yes, certainly. As I understand the RAC for this treaty table, we all represent some constituents. That is certainly my primary focus there: to inform those that I represent what the issues are.

In this particular region, with this treaty, there seems to be a fairly active involvement with the tripartite communication group. I see that as their role. They stem from the treaty table. They have an agenda with respect to communicating what's going on in the discussions in the treaty. That's their role, I see. I think the RAC's primary purpose is to inform those that are representing our interests what our interests and concerns may be.

I've had lots of experience over the last 20 years of trying to involve the public's interests in forest management activities. Despite the attempts for open processes and creative ways to do that, etc., usually it's only when the tree starts to fall that people start to take notice. I don't have an answer for making the general public more aware of the treaty process. Certainly, this committee's work, in going around the province, has elevated it. The fact that the government has said that we're going to have a referendum on this issue has elevated it. I think you're probably hearing some healthy discussion around the province as a result.

J. Les (Chair): Almost in passing, Dave, you mentioned earlier that there is a need that government should have relatively unencumbered access to Crown land. We heard earlier today that perhaps the model should ultimately look something like a shared ownership in the land, a communal approach, if you will. I was interested in your thoughts when you mentioned the need for unencumbered access to the land, what it was you were driving at.

D. Brown: What I meant there was: presuming the land selection model is the one that is used, whereby treaty settlement lands are identified in the treaty process, government's responsibility and ability to operate on the public land outside of treaty settlement lands would be relatively unencumbered. I recognize there are things like the Heritage Conservation Act that would imply the protection of cultural resources — for

example, an archaeological site. Those archaeological sites, as one example, may be outside of treaty settlement land. It goes far to say that I believe that the first nations in the province have some legitimate concern about the protection of those. I think our existing legislation can accommodate that. Basically what I'm saying is that the government is the decision-maker on that, rather than creating, as a result of treaty, an additional layer of government per se that would need to address that.

D. Brown: Well, I believe the purpose for going into the treaties is to resolve these relatively undefined aboriginal rights into some sort of treaty rights that can describe a settlement so that at the end of the day the lands that all British Columbians will enjoy the use of — they call that public land or publics — will have one virtual decision-maker. I think that's important to our economy, to the certainty and the finality that we're all seeking here.

D. Brown: Well, I can speak from the forest industry's perspective. We make significant investments in facilities, etc. If we don't have any assurance of long-term access to fibre supplies, to be able to have that in a relatively consistent planning framework, then it's difficult to make those investments and to remain profitable and contribute to the provincial economy.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions? Thank you very much, Dave. We appreciate your point of view.

G. Kahn: My name is Gunnar Kahn. I live in Elkford, British Columbia. I only heard about this process not that long ago, and I am not really prepared. I came here this morning to listen to what was being said. For a long time I didn't really know whether I should speak or not.

It seems to me that you're trying to find a political solution to a moral or legal issue. I think that cannot be done. I am opposed to the referendum, because the courts have already said that the public does not have legal standing. If I am correct, just glancing over the Nisga'a treaty on the website, the Fishermen's Union asked for legal standing, and I think it was rejected. If that is the case, then any referendum would be more or less meaningless. Not only that, but I think a referendum would also create a lot of bad feelings.

At least to me the legal issue is quite clear. The Supreme Court has said that the Indians have legal rights. They were the owners of this land, which we took away. What gives me the right as a first-generation immigrant to tell the people that were originally here what they can or cannot do with this land?

By going the way you are going, you will not be able solve it unless you want to use other means like conquest or violence, as in the past. It has already been stated by the Supreme Court that the natives have rights. The only thing you are being asked is what those rights are and how they will be administered.

You also were concerned about economic interests. Again, as a blue-collar worker to me it does not make any difference whatsoever who the owner is, let's say, of your coal mine in the Elk Valley, whether that be an Indian tribe, Fording Coal or some foreign corporation.

I think this whole thing is somewhat disingenuous. I used to be a very naïve person. Unfortunately, I have become somewhat cynical in my old age. I have been a little bit involved in environmental issues, and I have learned how governments work. It appears to me — and I'm certain that your government knows — that the referendum is not binding. So I ask myself: what is the point? If you want to find out what the people think, there are much better and scientifically more valid ways of finding out. You can have surveys which are correct to plus or minus a couple of points.

Basically, the way I see it, we don't really have a legal right, but we have a moral obligation to address this issue and to do it in an honest and straightforward way. In any society that is based on law, you have to observe that law. You cannot, for instance, have a referendum on whether we want slavery, even if the people would be in favour of it. It's the same thing here. If the people of British Columbia, in the referendum, say that the Indians don't have any rights or whatever — I'm just exaggerating right now — legally it would mean absolutely nothing.

J. Les (Chair): Let me just stop you for a minute. That exaggeration was, in fact, an exaggeration. We have said clearly from the very beginning and always that we recognize the aboriginal rights as defined in the constitution. That is the law. What we are working with here is not the "what"; it is the "how" — how to do this in a way that is effective, in a way that produces results for all residents of British Columbia. We're all in this together — right?

Maybe I can pose a question to you: what is wrong with the government of the province consulting with the residents of the province and seeking their opinion? You're saying a referendum is not good, but on the other hand a survey might be okay.

G. Kahn: To me a referendum is something semi-legal. It can also be binding. It depends on the society, as you know. In Switzerland or wherever they do

everything by referendum, and that is binding, but here, I suppose, this referendum is not binding.

Basically, if you are really interested in finding out, then like I said, I feel there are better ways of doing it. As you know, this is a controversial issue. I think it's going to create a lot of problems amongst the people. Some, because of misunderstandings, may think: "Yeah, this is a referendum that is legal, and the government is going to use it as leverage when they do go to the treaty negotiations."

J. Les (Chair): What we are ultimately looking for, it seems to me, is to achieve the informed consent of British Columbians around a set of guiding principles that we will take to the negotiating table. While a process might be controversial, does that mean necessarily that we should hush it up and not expose a significant issue like this to public discussion and debate?

G. Kahn: It does not solve anything — the legal issue too. You have to negotiate it with them.

G. Kahn: Exactly. The only thing is, really, that the government has to sit down with the native tribe and say: "Okay, what do you want?" We cannot use the old ways, where people simply took and took things away. It is up to the native Indians and what they want. It is not up to me or the public. I don't claim to be well informed, and I think most people may be worse informed than I am. You know, I just came here. It's a sort of basic fairness.

As you know, this treaty process has been going on for a long time. I guess governments have been stalling for a reason, because now we have to make a decision. Maybe if the Indian tribes say: "Well, either we agree to something like…." I don't have any problems if the Indian tribes, like I said before, are the owners. You could set it up so they are the owners and we are basically sort of the managers of this country. They would be the legal owners. Again, I haven't thought enough about it to know all the nuts and bolts, obviously.

J. Les (Chair): Are there any questions from anyone? Okay. Thank you, Gunnar, for your presentation.

J. Les (Chair): Does anyone else have any submissions to make to the committee? If not, given the hour of the day….

J. Les (Chair): All right. Come to the table then so we can hear you and tell us who you are.

R. Shypitka: My name is Bob, or Robert, Shypitka. Thank you for being here and for this opportunity. However, one of the things that concerns me is that in a matter of such importance to the people of Canada and of British Columbia citizens there isn't more thought of communication to the public, especially on a meeting that has taken place here today and that has been in the past.

I just picked up yesterday's paper this afternoon at about 2:30 p.m., and it was the first I knew this meeting was going to be held. I don't think it gives people enough time to really seriously consider some of the points they would bring forth or any questions they'd have. I think that possibly there could even have been a mailing to people in the area of an agenda and what would be expected.

Putting that aside, I think our government in Canada and our provincial governments have failed the people of this country in so many ways. I think land claims and what is going on between the natives and the rest of the population of the country is total discrimination. I think it's against our human rights and the rights of each individual to be equal under the constitution of Canada.

I don't really believe there should be an issue of land claims. Why I say that is because, first off, I don't think the natives have any claim to the land, possibly with the exception of the reserves that have been designated to them. I think they should retain that. Land is not ownership. There's a term that's been used that white man owns the land or the native owns the land. My ownership of any property that I have — the property that my house sits on — is nothing but a performance bond. That's all I have. I really do not have ownership of that land. I have no ownership to the rights of minerals, oil, timber. If I build a house on my property and I do not pay the taxes — I'm unable to, whether due to sickness or health or financial problems — within three years, it is put up for tax sale. Now, that is ownership. Then I think that it really is not. So when it comes to land claims and all that comes with it and the advantage that the natives have in this country so far…. It goes on and on, not only their rights to health, welfare and fishing. It says here you can have continued access to hunting and fishing, and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed. That is not even being guaranteed right now in the federal government.

On food fisheries and fishing in British Columbia. On the east coast we can see where it's leading us all to. It's actually discrimination against everybody else. They'll overstep their mark. There's no need for a food fishery. Everybody should be equal and have equal opportunities, not separating themselves out again, as they were separated out before under the old treaty or

onto the reserves. What we're creating now are people who have special privileges. These privileges will go on and on. Also, there are a lot of them — I hate to say this, and maybe it's not right — who are not much more native than I am — and I have no native blood — going under these land claims and special rights, special governments.

When I grew up in this country — I was born in this country; my father was born in this country — I believed we were Canadians and we were all equal. When I went to school, I was very hurt that I was not a Canadian. I was asked by the governments of this country: what nationality were my parents? Where did they come from? That was the nationality I had to put down. I think if this carries on, with separate people, separate nations — and I don't know how many nations there are in separate governments — we're heading into a lot of trouble. Fifty or 100 years down the road they will see that we've done the wrong thing. We've separated people out, as we've done in the past.

It seems that one of the big problems in settling these land claims issues is financial, and a lot of it's to do with resources and getting on with whatever we're going to do to make a dollar. I think a lot of commercial enterprises would want to have more access to it, but that's only financial. It's only a monetary thing. It's not the human rights issues we're dealing with here, and we're creating errors.

You know, I like it that "Jurisdictional certainty between first nations and local municipalities must be clearly spelled out." What does that mean? One city government dealing with a native government or the federal government dealing with them? Each separate nation, each separate government? They already claim they are not even part of Canada, that they have their own rights. How far can that go?

It says here that the province will maintain parks and protected areas for the use of or to benefit British Columbians. That remains to be seen. They're claiming

more land than there actually is in the province. That would include private property in many cases, which is already being done.

Tax exemptions. If they're going to get all that land, they better pay the taxes on it as well as I do and everybody else does. I don't think they would be able to do that. What about taxes on mineral extraction or lumber, timber, mining? There are many questions. I really do think that overall, if it's the legal rights, we have nothing to stand on in this country. If we can't stop land claims, then it's actually a futile attempt to do anything. Where is the leadership? Where are the rights to maintain the Criminal Code in British Columbia when you have separate police forces? Even in Alberta they're already negotiating to actually put a police force on the highways that go through their lands to the reserve. Are the roads that go through the reserve owned by them? They never put them in. Transportation was never here.

Land claims. The actual Indians lived here as hunter-gatherers. They warred with each other. Where was their land? What did they have? Only the rights to gather and to move from one place to another. That's not land ownership.

I think you should be looking at what you're doing as far as the moral individual rights of everybody in this place to be a Canadian and to be equal. Equality means…. The way we're heading to these land claims is not equality.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much. Are there any questions from anyone? It appears not. Thank you for coming.

Does anyone else wish to make a presentation? If not, as I was about to say earlier, given the time of day, I think I will now adjourn this meeting. The committee will reconvene Wednesday of next week in Chilliwack.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS