Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 11 - Wednesday, October 17, 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); Bill Belsey, MLA; Gillian Trumper, MLA; Val Anderson, MLA; Blair Lekstrom, MLA; Dave Chutter, MLA; Rod Visser, MLA; Dennis MacKay, MLA; Mike Hunter, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 10:09 a.m.

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

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    1) Bob Hall, Stó:lō Nation
    2) Victoria Jordan
    3) Alex Macdonald, Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce
    4) Elaine Gray
    5) Ejnar Iversen
    6) Bill Wimpney, Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective Association

4. The Committee recessed from 12:16 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    7) Mary Helen Hatch
    8) Clint Hames, Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory Committee
    9) Joe Foy, Western Canada Wilderness Committee
    10) Mel Folkman
    11) Gil Caffyn
    12) David Oliver
    13) Dave Clyne

6. The Committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:59 p.m.

7. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 5 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		295
	B. Hall	295
	V. Jordan	299
	A. Macdonald	301
	E. Gray	303
	E. Iversen	304
	B. Wimpney	304
	M. Hatch	311
	C. Hames	312
	J. Foy	320
	M. Folkman	322
	G. Caffyn	324
	D. Oliver	325
	D. Clyne	328

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:

Gil Caffyn
Dave Clyne
Mel Folkman (Councillor, City of Chilliwack)
Joe Foy (Director, Western Canada Wilderness Committee)
Elaine Gray
Bob Hall (Yewal Siyam, Stó:lō Nation)
Clint Hames (Mayor, City of Chilliwack; Chair, Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory Committee)
Mary Helen Hatch
Ejnar Iversen
Victoria Jordan
Alex Macdonald (Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce)
David Oliver
Bill Wimpney (Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective Association)

J. Les (Chair): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call the hearing to order for today. My name is John Les. I'm the MLA for the riding that we're in today, Chilliwack-Sumas — Chilliwack-Kent being just across the street over there on Young. I'm chairing this committee, which is the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

Before I ask the members to introduce themselves, I'll just describe what the committee has been asked to do. On August 27 it was officially established by the Legislature. It was asked to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all matters and issues concerning questions that the government of B.C. should submit to voters in order 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. The committee's terms of reference and other information about the legislative committee process are available at the information table at the back of the room.

We're eager to hear the views from a range of British Columbians. In this process we hope to build interest and support for the treaty process. To this end, we've publicized the hearing process and a call for written submissions in radio and newspaper ads throughout the province. Written submissions will be accepted until Friday, November 2.

The hearings have been and will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff, who are over there. The transcripts will be available on the committee's website, and if any of you want to look them up, the web address is 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 isn't sitting, it will be deposited with the Clerk by November 30. The report will be a public document once it has been tabled.

I'll now ask the committee members to introduce themselves. I would note that several of the committee members are not here. They will be arriving in the course of the morning. There were several other committees meeting yesterday, so several of them are still making their way here. We have the majority of them here, starting with Val Anderson.

V. Anderson: Good morning, everybody. Val Anderson, MLA for Vancouver-Langara.

G. Trumper: Good morning. I'm Gillian Trumper. I'm the MLA for Alberni-Qualicum.

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

D. MacKay: Good morning. My name is Dennis MacKay. I represent Bulkley Valley–Stikine, and I live in Smithers.

M. Hunter: Good morning. I'm Mike Hunter. I'm the member for Nanaimo, which is my home.

J. Les (Chair): To my immediate left is Kate Ryan-Lloyd. She's the Committee Clerk. At the back of the room is Tamara Little, who's a consultant to the committee and well known to several people in Chilliwack given her previous role as coordinator for the Fraser Valley treaty advisory committee.

With those things out of the way, our first presenter is here, and that is Bob Hall.

B. Hall: Good morning, everyone. John, I'm not too sure how I even got here, to be honest with you. I got a call from my mother-in-law, who told me that Dorothy had scheduled a time for us to say a few words to you.

J. Les (Chair): So it's either Dorothy or your mother-in-law that got you into this.

B. Hall: Well, my mother-in-law phoned to tell me that I was on the agenda at ten o'clock.

I'd like to begin by making it very clear that Stó:lō nation…. My role there is acting Stó:lō yewal siyam, which is the acting president of our tribe. Our territory runs from north of Yale at Sawmill Creek coming down the river both sides all the way to New Westminster, just the other side of the Port Mann. We have a very large territory within the Fraser Valley. I have to try to make it very clear that we're in total opposition to the referendum.

I want to maybe caution you on the work that's before you. I'm afraid that it might create some civil disobedience because of the different attitudes that exist within this province. It might promote the racist conditions that we experienced. To that end, when you're faced with creating some questions that you're going to put before the public, I ask you to be very careful with that. I don't think it's proper, either, that the majority should be asked to rule on the minority. To that end, I have prepared a statement, and I will read it to you. It also gives us an opportunity to register some of our concerns and our positions for the public record.

Many of our leaders are against the process, and we're going to encourage our membership not to participate in the vote when we get to that point. Certainly, there's a lot of mistrust and misgivings. But if this committee has already determined what its recommendations are going to be…. I think this

still represents an opportunity for us as first nations to maybe provide some constructive suggestions, and hopefully we can share those with the general public.

What I have to say is for the benefit of not only this legislative committee but those who are concerned about treaty negotiations and aboriginal rights and title and, I think — looking at it from the Premier's position — the economic future of this province. I think it's unfair that you're going to go before the general public of British Columbia to ask a number of questions — ask them for a yes or a no vote — when they're not fully aware of the history or the circumstances we're faced with.

The first thing the general public needs to understand is that with the exception of the Douglas treaties and/or Treaty 8 in northern British Columbia, there were no treaties negotiated with first nations by those that established the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia. This failure was all the more surprising given that there have been specific royal proclamations requiring Crown colonies to negotiate such treaties prior to occupying the lands.

Here in British Columbia the colonies' founders, for the most part, didn't bother to negotiate any treaties for the simple reason that there were so many of our people dying at the time from the different diseases which our neighbours from Europe brought. Maybe the opinion at that time — if we could all go back, it would be nice, but it is an opinion based on what I know about some of our history — was that everybody just expected us to die off, and the ones that were left would just become assimilated. It didn't happen, and now the government is faced with a situation where our communities are now grown in terms of both population and education of our membership. We know what our legal rights are. We know what our constitutional rights are, and we know the value of the lands and the resources that have been taken from us.

Now the governments of Canada and British Columbia are in the difficult situation of occupying land that they cannot prove title to, simply ignoring our aboriginal rights and entitlement rights. It worked. The government, especially the federal government, basically ignored our aboriginal rights and title until the Supreme Court of Canada, of course, ruled that our rights have not been extinguished. The unfortunate part of the rulings that have come down in our favour have made it very clear that we should negotiate what those rights and titles are and what they specifically mean.

Marshall, which came out last year on fishing in New Brunswick, actually created more conflict. There's a risk we run. The court there made a ruling in our favour and then, for whatever political or legal reasons, went back and did another ruling. The ruling that came out really encouraged the conflict that took place in Burnt Church last year, so we both run the risk of running into that same problem in the future. That, coupled with the uncertainty and conflict created by these fundamental property rights issues, has cost British Columbia billions of dollars in economic growth and investment opportunities over the past few years.

The upside of this is that the cost of treaty settlements will be large for British Columbia. The benefits will even be greater, although the province will lose some Crown land — maybe a few dollars from Ottawa. More importantly, the cost of the treaty settlement will be spent here in British Columbia.

This brings me to the first point: specifically, that out of the three parties at the negotiating table, British Columbia has more to lose than either Canada or ourselves by not reaching a treaty settlement. I want to be clear on this point. Leaving these matters unresolved will hurt the economy of British Columbia more than it will hurt the economy of our nation. The problem now is that the current British Columbia treaty process has really been a complete failure. It hasn't completed one treaty, and I think it should be realized that the Nisga'a settlement was done under a different process. It was not part of the British Columbia treaty process.

The Sechelt agreement-in-principle. The Sechelt band walked after that agreement was done. As we all know, the Nuu-chah-nulth signed an agreement-in-principle and then was asked to take that agreement to referendum by their membership. I know that the members in Port Alberni — I'm good friends with Cliff Atleo — turned down that treaty agreement-in-principle by 93 percent, I think he told me. He was very upset; our leaders were very upset. You know, I see the same thing happening here if we don't step back a little bit and take more time. We're educating not only our own people but the general public. So it's not a very impressive result, when we consider that we've invested over $180 million within the existing British Columbia treaty process.

I think the first step is that the province and Canada need to stop ignoring the basic constitutional and legal principles that protect our aboriginal rights and title. The government, through this referendum process, should recognize that we can't do a treaty band by band. We have to do it as a tribal group. I have a very specific example here in Stó:lō territory. The government has allowed one of our communities to enter the treaty process as one single band. That alone will create internal conflict. It already has. Now we're arguing amongst ourselves about the territorial boundaries. So if the provincial government and the people of the province can recognize that a treaty is important to all of us, but we do it on a tribal basis…. Canada is only too quick to point out the tribal point in a court of law, but when it comes to treaty-making, suddenly this legal principle goes out the window. I think the province has fallen into that same trap. To that end, for both legal and practical reasons, the treaty process needs to be restricted to negotiating treaties with nations, not individual communities.

The next is a streamlining step. The self-government negotiations need to be removed from the treaty talks, whether self-government is negotiated on a trilateral basis, as was the case with Sechelt, or a bilateral basis, as was the case with Westbank.

Personally, I think it should be a bilateral negotiation between Canada and our local first nations. I think it's really up to each individual community, of course, but we support the fact that the provincial government's new mandate is to set aside negotiations on self-government.

The next issue is taxation. I think it's critical to the process, if we're going to be successful in achieving a treaty between ourselves and the provincial and federal governments, that the eight-and-12 tax formula set down by the provincial government be taken off the table. It is my view that the taxation rates that exist is really a national issue and that it should be dealt with by the federal government.

The next point I'd like to make to the committee is that interim measures should be the main focus of the treaty negotiations at this time. Interim measures will work in that they will reduce uncertainty and conflict. They will not only make it possible for companies to invest in our people who can get jobs, which will provide hope in the short run, but they will provide a clear example for our young people that negotiations do work and can work.

By adopting the interim measures focus in this process, I believe treaties become more of an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary development. It provides a much better understanding to your taxpayers and some tangible results for the hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in the treaty talks. So I think the interim measures are very important.

The last comment I'd like to make just before I conclude my statement is that you have to find a way of determining…. When I look at what you did with the class action against the Nisga'a treaty, I'm not quite clear on some things. I had the chance to sit at a meeting where the Premier of the province and the new government made it very clear that they wanted to protect our existing constitutional and legal aboriginal rights and title. Then I look at the class action submitted by the Liberal government against the Nisga'a treaty process.

I think the fundamental question is that you might be scared of the third form of self-government jurisdiction. So how do we educate the general public as to what self-government means to us, and what jurisdictions are we going to exercise?

I read a paper from one of your lawyers that suggested you were afraid that the form of jurisdiction that we might establish might be greater than the provincial jurisdiction and even greater than the federal jurisdiction. That would be ideal to me, but in the world that we live in, that will never exist. I'm a strong believer that we were first here and that we were never conquered.

I think you have to find a way of understanding what self-government means, and then how we work it together. Maybe the time has come when you should come and ask us, ask our tribal groups throughout the region, what we want in the form of self-government. Allow us to develop the principles and the framework, and then we will table it with you. I'm a strong believer that we have to learn how to work together.

I'm going to conclude by sharing this with you. I'd like to leave the committee with this final caution. The governments of Canada and British Columbia and the Stó:lō nation entered into a treaty process on a good faith basis, on the basis that we ourselves had borrowed over $7 million to finance our share of the negotiations. I'm greatly concerned that British Columbia may use its treaty referendum process to substantially revise its position such that the chances of reaching a successful treaty negotiation may become even more remote.

If that occurs, we will consider that a fundamental breach of the good faith negotiation circumstances under which we agreed to borrow millions of dollars from the government of Canada. In such a circumstance, I can assure you that the Stó:lō nation would not be prepared to waste a penny more on the treaty negotiations, nor see a penny more of our revenue go to repay the moneys wasted in negotiations which, basically, may be rendered meaningless by British Columbia's unilateral change of the negotiation positions.

With that, John, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to say a few words to you. I want to thank you for coming to the heart of Stó:lō nation territory to hold one of the four meetings.

B. Hall: I had the opportunity to meet with John a little while ago, and I thanked him. I wanted to share with the committee that he shared with me your basic process and the responsibilities you're faced with. I do have one question that I'd like to ask John about the legislative authority you're operating the standing committee under. Are you going to apply the Referendum Act?

J. Les (Chair): I'm not sure I can answer that question. A committee like this operates under the same rules as the Legislature itself. We have been mandated by the Legislature to produce a report setting out our recommendations by November 30. At that point it's over to the entire Legislature as to how to proceed from there. That is not the purview of this committee. The decision as to exactly under what auspices the referendum will be conducted is a decision for the Legislature, not for this committee. I hope that answers the question, at least as best I can answer it right now.

B. Hall: I need to know if it's under the Referendum Act. When you do decide how it's going to proceed, I need to know quickly, because we are going to challenge the 12-year anniversary repayment clause in the agreement. Our lawyers tell us that it's important to try to find out under what authority you're going to go to the public. If you go under the Referendum Act, as I'm to understand, the decision that the members of British Columbia give you will be binding. If that's the case,

J. Les (Chair): As soon as that information is available, Bob, I'll call you up and we'll go and have coffee at the airport again.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. You've raised a point which I'd like you to give some thought to. You made the comment that negotiations should take place on a tribal basis, and I'm very familiar with the Nuu-chah-nulth and what happened there. What you have said about one band negotiating separately from your nation is quite true, and in the end, you see, we had two that withdrew themselves. Six bands have approved the AIP; six haven't. They've got a problem. I met with some of them the other day as to where they're going.

Your comment about dealing with the whole body rather than the individual bands…. Is it possible to see it negotiated with all of the first nations on certain principles which are the same for all of the nations and then doing some of the local issues as interim measures? Do you see that as a possibility? Or are you all, as individual nations, not able to do that?

B. Hall: I think you have to consider our cultural differences and some of our traditional and language differences. To me, that suggests there could be a number of different principles applied to the treaty process, depending on the tribal wishes. Right now you've got everybody in the same sort of bucket, and I don't see that resulting in any kind of treaty agreement. I think we have some very distinct traditions in the Fraser Valley that might not apply to the Chilcotin tribe or to the Skeena tribe.

G. Trumper: I understand that. I think we're wanting to look at ways out of this, although some people would not agree with this view, to hopefully try and speed the process up and make it more efficient. As you say, it's gone on for eight years. I've been at the table for eight years as a local government representative, and we still haven't got any treaties. We are trying to get some finality — that's probably not the right word — to get to the end of the road so there are treaties in place in a better, quicker, more efficient way.

B. Hall: We could have done a deal in year one if we'd agreed to assimilate and surrender and extinguish our rights. You see, that's the point I'm trying to make. You have to recognize that we're not about to do that.

Historically, if you look at the Nisga'a, they told me that they were at it for 50 years. We're not going to settle on a treaty overnight. One of the things that John and I talked about at the airport was the fact that the fundamental principles are different. We don't understand and we don't know where you're coming from as a province. We don't know what rules you're playing by. On one hand you're saying: "Yeah, we recognize section 35 constitutional rights, and we're willing to protect that." But we don't know how.

It's the same with the federal government. The federal government is just as much at fault for not developing the principles, even though we did in the initial agreement. Now you're trying to change it to the referendum process, so it creates mistrust. We wonder where you're coming from.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Bob, for your presentation. It's the hope of this committee to find some principles upon which a referendum can be put to all the people of British Columbia. You shared with us some of your concerns and the experiences of the first nations and referendums with the Nuu-chah-nulth band and how that was turned down by those people. You've also informed us that first nations are being asked to boycott the process or not participate in the referendum. You've also made mention that it should be a bilateral negotiation between first nations and the government of Canada. I'm wondering what you see the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia doing to move forward treaty negotiations so that we can put your concerns and our concerns behind us and move on. Can you share any of those thoughts or ideas with us?

B. Hall: Well, I understand that you control 93 percent of the resources and land in British Columbia. I think you should ask your people if they want to share that with us. If they do, then that would define one of your roles.

I see that as one of the primary reasons that we're at the table. That's why Stó:lō nation is very committed to the interim measures negotiations and process, because we see an economic opportunity not only for ourselves to create jobs for our people but also to support the needs of the general community. I've heard that a lot of people are standing outside the boundaries of the province waiting to come in, but they won't come in until they know where we stand or where the province stands with the treaty process. I think you could ask your people how much they're going to share or how much they'd like to share with us, because a lot of resistance, as you know, comes about because the general public feel we're going to walk in and take over their land. That's not at all the case. Because you have that jurisdiction, how do you share it?

B. Belsey: Do you feel that an appropriate question would be: are you willing to share 93 percent of the land and the resources? Is that where we're going with this — something like that?

M. Hunter: Thanks, Bob, for your eloquent, thoughtful presentation. I'll reserve the right to have a coffee with you to debate the issue of the extent and scope of aboriginal rights, but I won't do that this morning because that's not what we're here for.

You made a number of comments. You talked about the need to take time to educate both your people and the general public. You talked about the organization of the process — i.e., how the aboriginal peoples organize themselves and how the two levels of government deal with that. You talked about removing certain issues from the table; self-government and taxation were two. You talked about interim measures. I'm trying to extract from all that; I want to understand what your position is. Are you saying to us that there are things, certain issues, that could be set aside and dealt with on a general provincewide basis and leave to the local tables the interim measures — the practical and day-to-day, let's-get-on-with-it business? Is that what you're saying, or am I misinterpreting you?

B. Hall: Interim measures, I think, will provide the opportunity for us to work together. It is being done by certain first nations now in this province. It opened the door to allow our members to realize that you're willing to recognize that we do have certain rights. I think the table which has been done already by the Premier is good, because there are some federal jurisdiction rights which we need to sit down with the federal government and deal with. You know, they're trying to throw in the governance act and the Financial Institutions Act and basically change the Indian Act. If we could find something that's common to both of us — and I think interim measures is the bottom line — then we work together. If we can work together in something, it will then create a better relationship in the long run. I'm a strong believer in that. We get to talk to one another — right?

V. Anderson: Thank you, Bob. This has been extremely helpful and insightful, and I appreciate it very much. You indicated that the present process has not worked. Were there not clear principles to guide the process in the beginning, and is that the reason why it didn't work? Or were there principles that have proven not to be valid ones? If so, can you suggest what would be principles — you've highlighted some suggestions — for developing a new process with a different set of principles and time frame? Were there principles in the beginning? There was a list of some 19 different kinds of principles. Are we saying that those have proven to be inadequate and need to be replaced by principles that have come out of our experience and that would be more adequate at this time to move forward?

B. Hall: I think the principles need to be evaluated, the 19 originals ones that you're talking about. We both have to sit down and look very seriously at whatever principle we want to talk about and determine whether we need to set it aside or modify it. The initial 19 that were agreed to can work. It's a matter of us understanding where you're coming from. What foundation are you working from? What foundation is the federal government coming from? Are we being dictated to — all three of us — by the Supreme Courts or the law of the land? We don't know that. I think it's an important question.

D. Chutter: Just a few quick questions. You said that we must settle treaties on a tribal basis. Is there a consensus from the bands in your particular tribal group to do that?

B. Hall: No. It's something that we would have to deal with internally. As you know, we do have bands or communities that aren't involved in the treaty process, here in Stó:lō territory. In fact, we've had one of our original members withdraw from the process, and it's because of what we're talking about right now.

D. Chutter: The principles that you were just referring to — do you agree with those principles?

B. Hall: Every time I hesitate, it means no — right? [Laughter.] I've learned. This has been a new experience for me, everyone. When I was in front of the press about some issues facing our tribe, I didn't respond, and they plastered it all over the paper so it suggested no, yes and maybe.

I think we need to evaluate. Actually, there hasn't been a process up until a point, because the government — you guys beat them up so badly…. The change in government, I guess, has slowed it down. The main tables haven't been meeting. What I'm saying is that we need to evaluate those principles that we agreed to in '94 or whenever it was. The Premier signed it, the Prime Minister signed it, and we signed it, and I think the three of us have to look at them.

I'd like to thank you, Bob, for coming this morning and sharing your thoughts with us. We appreciate it a lot.

I don't believe Marion Mussel is here. Victoria Jordan, though, is here. I'll have to let you introduce the little guy.

This will be short. I just found out about this last night, so I put something together really quickly. My name is Victoria Jordan. I'm a Canadian and a member of the Haida nation. I'm also a full-time student and a

full-time mother and wife. I just want to thank you for allowing my humble two cents on this issue. I think it's a good thing. I realize that probably all of you have educated yourselves and know the full background of the situation, but just for the interest of saying my two cents, I'll read off what I've prepared.

The consequences of colonialism on first nations people have been devastating from the start. When the people of North America were colonized, the colonizers took everything. They took their land, their traditional hunting territories, their language, their culture and eventually even their children. I realize that the average British Columbian feels distanced from this issue in general — most of the time so do I — and feels that it may be ancient history to bring up old wrongs, but let me put this in perspective for you.

My own grandmother went to the residential school at Coqualeetza, and the residential school model was not abandoned until 1951, one year before my mother was born — fortunately for her. It's not as ancient as might be imagined by most British Columbians.

As for the argument of not being responsible for past wrongs, all I can argue is that this is not about placing blame. It's about making restitution, restoring to the first nations the full rights that have always been in place, restoring dignity and rebuilding communities that are still suffering from the effects of colonialism's mistakes.

That being said, I have my doubts about the effectiveness of a treaty referendum in general. I fear that the general electorate of B.C. might view it as a cure-all to make everybody happy on both sides, when the reality for me is that the treaty process must continue anyway, regardless of the outcome of any referendum. Maybe we should be asking ourselves what this is really going to accomplish. Likely it will only lead to more confrontation.

In regards to the question of a treaty referendum, my main concern is with the question or the questions themselves. The public at large has had other things on its mind of late, and the last thing the average British Columbian is going to want to do is read any sort of information package or do any research. I don't believe the general public is educated enough on the complex history of aboriginal title in B.C., nor do I believe they are terribly interested in being educated. Call me cynical, but that's been my experience at college and within my own small circle.

I have a hard time conceiving of any referendum question or even questions that would fairly represent this complex history to the public and allow them to cast an informed vote. Nevertheless, the Liberal government has decided that this is one election promise it cannot afford to renege on. So my hope and suggestion, impossible though it may be, is that any question be framed in such a way as to be fair and representative — a task that I don't envy anyone.

I desperately hope this referendum is not simply a tactic of trying to please a referendum-happy electorate. Out here in the west we are Reform country. The provincial government has shown little support for or belief in the treaty process, even to the point of filing a lawsuit challenging the Nisga'a agreement in 1998. The best chance this government has to allay those fears and suspicions…. If and when the elusive question is finally framed, I hope it will have been with the participation and consultation of a diverse party of individuals, such as persons representing the first nations, persons from the previous government who initiated the process in B.C. and members from the B.C. Treaty Commission, who have been studying and working on the issue for the past few years. How many — eight years?

I'm not sure if it is entirely reasonable to ask the uninformed public to cast a vote based on media information and knee-jerk reactions on an issue that could affect the lives of all B.C.'s first nations, who since first contact have had their voices stifled time and time again. However, if the provincial government decides it is reasonable, then I suggest it is also only reasonable to include representatives from first nations people in the drafting of that all-important question and to allow first nations people a vote in deciding who will frame such a question — maybe Chief Matthew Coon Come or former Chief Ovide Mercredi or Miles Richardson, who sits on the B.C. Treaty Commission.

In conclusion, when Canada was formed, the first nations were guaranteed their way of life would not be disturbed, that if they submitted to the English rule of law, they would be protected by it because all would be considered equal under the law. This proved to be a false promise, and the previous government was finally forced by the Supreme Court of Canada to admit that they had to deal with the issue and so set forth with the treaty process. Obviously, this process cannot now be halted. My hope is that the government of this province will not let us down again. Thank you.

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

V. Anderson: Thank you very much for coming. What I'm hearing from you is that there are elders who went through the difficult times, the transition and the school processes, and then there are the children from that. Now we're into probably a third generation who are seeking to discover in a new way who they are and the heritage they have. Can you make a suggestion of how we can best help to make sure those experiences are understood by others who have not experienced them, even though they lived in the same situations but in different parts?

V. Jordan: It would be very difficult. I know that when the Nisga'a treaty was going through the NDP government, they drew up a big campaign of media information, and just from my own experience that was reviewed pretty cynically by most non-aboriginal people that I knew. People saw it as propaganda. They saw it as the government just trying to ram something down their throats. While I realize that education is

paramount — and educating the public should definitely be a huge part of this whole process — I have my doubts as to its effectiveness. I'm not sure how many more people need to be brought into this.

The B.C. treaty process has been called a tripartite process involving the provincial level of government, the federal level of government and first nations peoples themselves, but obviously it has been more than tripartite. Municipal governments have been brought into it, and industry, business, logging and mining interests have been brought into it. It's called tripartite, but it's already been much more than tripartite, and in my view that is what has bogged down the whole process. That's why it has dragged on for so long. To me, bringing in however many thousands — I don't know the population of B.C…. Bringing in all of B.C. citizens to the table is really not streamlining the process but further bogging down the system. It's already too slow. It's already bogged down.

To answer your question, I'm not exactly sure how you could do it effectively. It should be done; it must be done. But my cynicism gets in the way, and I really don't see how it can be done to the satisfaction of the average B.C. citizen.

It's been stressed before that education is important. Would it be true — because it might help us to understand — that even if the treaty process had been completed, the lack of understanding between the various parties involved would still be there? The education to make it work would still be fundamentally important. Maybe a principle might be: how do we do the educational process that we all need in understanding and learning to live in a new circumstance? Is that a fair way to look at that issue at least?

V. Anderson: In the original treaty process, there was to be an educational understanding rather than a propaganda process. I agree with you on that. That never took place. Are we saying that this principle needs to be revitalized and done in a fair and open way, no matter what else we do?

V. Jordan: Yeah, I definitely agree with that. I don't know about high school curricula, the necessity of educating school kids. I think that would be a first step. Our high schools are full of disadvantaged aboriginals and advantaged aboriginals. I know the B.C. Treaty Commission has put together a good information package and a good piece of educational curricula which could be extremely useful. That's the generation that I think we really have to start with: the youth. Like you said, this is third generation or fourth generation. Aboriginal peoples are still here; we will always be here. That's probably the best age to start educating people, when their minds haven't been made up yet. I agree. I think making it mandatory in secondary education would be invaluable. I've seen some of it myself. It's very factual, very fair, and I would recommend it.

B. Belsey: I'm just kind of curious. I raised two boys, and I've never seen a boy sit in one place like that.

J. Les (Chair): I'm running slightly behind, and I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of Elaine and let Alex Macdonald go first. Would that be all right? Alex, are you ready to go?

A. Macdonald: Very limited speech and a little book. Thanks very much for the opportunity. I must admit I'm a little overwhelmed. I wasn't 100 percent sure I was making a presentation.

I'm the president of the chamber of commerce here in Chilliwack, and my name is Alex Macdonald. I also own a real estate company in town. Not having a 100 percent clear understanding of what the committee seeks, I do have concerns with the referendum question. I don't have the answers. From the people I talk to on a day-to-day basis, I have a limited understanding of some of the background of the first nations, the history and how we got to where we are today. I must admit that the public at large that I meet on a daily basis really don't. As I say, my understanding is pretty limited on some of the things we talked about earlier today. When I meet people socially and business people, it does amaze me that there is as much ignorance as there is out there. Certainly, that's a challenge this committee will face in putting together any sort of a referendum question.

From a chamber of commerce standpoint, the uncertainty has affected us. Last year we had a threat of a roadblock in the Cultus Lake area. It cost one business in particular over $20,000 in revenues on that weekend. We really want this to come forward. There are three parties involved and three bureaucracies representing those parties. From the outside, it's always very easy to criticize. The concern is that there isn't really motivation amongst those parties or the ability to settle and, consequently, that this process will go on for generations. That certainly isn't what we need.

I think most people understand that down the road, there has to be some form of self-government for the

first nations. Certainly, as Chief Hall alluded to earlier, if there are different self-government issues for each and every band or if there isn't some sort of overall template, it can be very confusing for business in the future if there are different jurisdictions and different issues in every area.

From a real estate standpoint, in the Chilliwack area we have a number of real estate developments on first nations land. In a lot of ways, we've had a lot of business opportunities going back and forth in our area. I think it's important that we try and come up with a solution that is more universal rather than very individual, with first nations having the equivalent of a municipal-style government, and leaving the provincial and federal issues to those bodies. At the end of the day, whenever that happens, I think we'll come out with an equal solution so that first nations or non–first nations, everybody is treated equally, has entitlement to the same benefits and pays the same sort of tax base.

Ownership and land have certainly been key to the non-native population. Pride of ownership has been an issue that has worked well. I'm not a first nations person, but I question how that can be done within the first nations environment so that they can enjoy that same pride of ownership.

Elimination of the Indian Affairs department as it works today. We've created this bureaucracy whose own best interest is in making it as time-consuming and difficult as possible. It eats up a lot of money and doesn't get the job done. So we've created a situation where, having seen some of the difficulties involved from a real estate development standpoint and the time it takes to deal with the federal government, I can't even imagine what first nations people deal with when they're trying to go forward and they're dealing with that kind of bureaucracy. I certainly don't have any answers, but that's just some on-the-street input from the chamber of commerce and other business people that I meet with.

D. MacKay: Alex, you mentioned that self-government was needed, and you suggested the municipal style of government, I think. Is that what your response was?

A. Macdonald: Yes, and I have to qualify that I am not an expert in the area, but I have taken the time to try and read through the Nisga'a agreement and have a bit of understanding, which may be more dangerous than not. But yes — municipal-style government.

D. MacKay: The reason I mention that is that the Nisga'a government, which is a third order of government and is race-based…. The purpose and reason that we're here today is to find some principles. The people of the province should have a say as to what principles our negotiators are going to play out in their part of the treaty negotiation process. They don't have any marching instructions. The provincial government hasn't given marching instructions to the people that are negotiating on their behalf. The purpose of this committee is to find some principles that they can go to the table with so they don't have to keep coming back to the province.

This municipal-style government is one that I feel is very important. I think Nisga'a set a very bad example in that under the Nisga'a third order of government that they now have, they have superiority over the federal and provincial bodies in 19 different areas. Is that what the people of the province want — 19 areas of superior jurisdiction in some 50 parts of the province? If that's what the people want and if one of the questions that comes out in the referendum suggests people want that, then I suppose that's what we're going to have to live with. But I think we owe it to the people of the province to have some say in the principles that should guide treaty negotiations. We presently have 19 principles that were agreed upon some time ago, but I don't think the people…. I would question if anybody in this room knows what those 19 principles are, which the treaty negotiators are presently negotiating under.

That's the purpose of the committee: to educate the people so they have an understanding of what's going on at the table. I think this committee, as we draw to a conclusion on Vancouver Island in the first part of November, is going to have educated the people a little bit more on the principles. That's what we're looking for: the principles, not the treaties themselves. The natives have guaranteed rights in the constitution, but the other 97 percent of the people in this province should have some say in those principles that will guide the treaty negotiations. We're looking for input.

Alex, I appreciate your input, and I'd like to thank you very much for giving us your time this morning.

D. Chutter: Alex, just a brief question. You mentioned pride of ownership of aboriginal people with property. Is that an opinion, or have you heard within the aboriginal community that that is a concern that's an issue of theirs?

A. Macdonald: It is not something I've heard within the aboriginal community; it's more an observation. I'm not saying that is the answer for first nations people. They have to make that decision. Certainly, within the rest of the population I think it's been a critical part of what makes our system work. We have some exposure with locatee ownership within the bands. Some first nations people have what is basically ownership of land and are able to do things with that land. Certainly, it would be nice to have a system at the end of the day where every first nations person would have that opportunity.

M. Hunter: Thanks, Alex, for sharing your thoughts. I have a comment and a question for you. You talked about your limited understanding of the issue, but you've ploughed through part of the Nisga'a deal. Well, that's good. I would say that when we're

looking to ask questions about principles, I'm not sure that any allegations of ignorance of the details of the issue should be a roadblock to making progress on issues of principle. For what it's worth, I'll offer that to you.

A comment you made was that you thought there was a lack of motivation to settle that was evident, I suppose, in the last eight years. Do you have any thoughts about how that motivation might be pushed a little bit in terms of principles, time lines — any particular principles that come to mind that might help us deal with that issue of motivation? It is something that's been mentioned by a number of witnesses.

A. Macdonald: I think part of the process that you're maybe starting now, where you can give the team that works on behalf of the provincial government some guidelines to work within, is certainly a step in the right direction. I liken it to our business, the real estate business. In negotiation you have to have a minimum of two parties that want to come to an agreement in a time period. If you don't have those things, it gets very difficult. In those types of negotiations we have, at the table, the buyers and the sellers themselves, not representatives down the chain of command. Maybe we have to look at some of the people sitting at that table and how much authority they have to make a deal happen.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Alex. We appreciate you coming this morning.

E. Gray: A couple of points to begin. I just want to say, first of all, that I think designing a referendum over this issue is going to be akin to untying a Gordian knot. I wish you all the very best in trying to do it.

Initially, I would like to make a comment about putting questions on a referendum. I think there has to be an awful lot of effort put into making sure that whatever question or questions go on this are at a literacy level that people can read. It's the number one priority. If you can't read the question, it's pretty hard to give an answer. As much as possible, it should be free of bias. How you work that one out, I'm not sure. I'll leave that to you. I also think we have to make sure that the results can be understood. We all are aware of the results of the Quebec referendum and all the controversy that swirled around that. Those are my comments on doing a referendum in the first place — to be sure those matters are looked at.

With regard to the negotiation process, I think there are a number of principles that need to be addressed — first of all, fairness to all citizens. This cannot be a process that is fair to one side and not fair to the other or that people don't feel is fair. We all inhabit this province. We all have rights in this province. We must get fair and just results out of any treaty negotiations that go on. We all have to live with it; we all have to be comfortable with it.

Secondly, I think there has to be a recognition of environmental and health issues. Those are a priority. There can't be any compromises that put those areas of our lives at risk. That means we have to have access to clean water. We have to have access to clean air. We have to have safety of our food supplies. These must be guaranteed so that no one side or the other is infringing upon what I consider to be basic human rights. Everything must be done so that those are dealt with.

Thirdly, I think it would be very simplistic to suggest that a one-size-fits-all treaty process is going to work. We know there are differences in northern coastal communities compared to more urban areas and to areas such as this. We only need to look at current municipalities to see that one-size-fits-all doesn't work. If it did, they'd be all the same. Their rules and regulations would be all the same. I don't think that's going to work. Some tailoring in municipalities might help, but they could take in a few seams.

However, I think there has to be consistency in insisting that the basic regulations governing things, such as municipal acts, are in place for all treaties. Then, after you've got the basics in place, you can add the things that need to be added depending on the areas you're working in and what those particular needs are. That comment has already been made by Bob, I believe, in saying that certainly there are going to be issues that are different around, say, Chilliwack than what you're going to find in Bella Coola. You have to have some kind of a basis to begin with. You have to have some kind of a basic treaty that says this applies to everybody everywhere. Some of the things I mentioned first of all — the environmental issues, health issues and safety, that type of thing — have to be there.

In regard to relationships between treaties and municipalities, one of the things we really have to look seriously at is developing partnerships. As part of the process, there has to be something in place that says these partnerships will be there and that we can have some kind of a seamless delivery of service to the citizens.

We can't operate on the basis that sewer lines will only go to the edge of native lands and from that point on they have to deal with it and build their pipes. It's probably a very simplistic thing. But in matters like that — sewer, water, roads, services — there has to be an infrastructure that can work across municipal and treaty lands and that type of thing. Everybody is going to benefit if that can be done. It's going to reduce costs; it's going to make things so that we don't have a them-and-us situation. We have to manage this. We've managed it reasonably well in areas of education and medical services, but there are an awful lot of other areas where something needs to be done to make sure this can work.

I also feel very strongly that some areas of the treaty process need to look very carefully at women's and children's issues. Sometimes women and children become a side issue or get forgotten in the treaty struc-

ture, and we have to ensure that whatever structure is in place, those people are not being left out.

Lastly, I think the bands within the first nations community have to resolve their own disputes in regard to territorial claims. We know that there are areas where bands are both claiming the same chunk of territory, and they haven't been able to resolve this. It's very hard to deal with two other levels of government if you haven't solved those problems in the first place. That's really about all I have to say.

Perhaps I'll start with a question this time. The last point you raised was about the overlapping claims. It was originally one of the principles of the B.C. Treaty Commission that treaty negotiations would not commence until those overlaps had been resolved. We all know what's happened, of course. The treaty negotiations are going on. Would you suggest that it would have been a mistake, on behalf of the Treaty Commission, to allow the treaty negotiations to go forward without the basic overlapping claims not having been resolved first?

E. Gray: I think that they have to be. I can't see how they can set up a treaty process where you've got people saying: "This is our land." And the other group is saying: "No, it isn't. It's ours." How do you even start from there? I think the process has to go ahead at this stage, but my feeling would be, yes, maybe that was a basic problem that should have been solved somewhere long ago — not now.

B. Belsey: Elaine, thank you very much for your presentation. You brought some very interesting points to the table that I hadn't really picked out of other presentations. It would seem to me that the type of government that would be able to handle all these concerns you've brought forth is more likely to be the municipal level of government. Is that….?

E. Gray: Probably that would be sort of a basic concept so that there's some kind of a thing like the municipal…. I'm not going to go into the Municipal Act. That's probably a whole other…. Something along that line, where each area then could come up with its own revisions and decisions, depending on whether they are operating out of, as I said, Bella Coola or Chilliwack.

B. Belsey: That's fine. I don't really have anything more. I just wanted to make sure I understood it. Thank you very much.

G. Trumper: Thank you very much for your presentation. Your first comments on the referenda are something that we certainly are wrestling with, when you're trying to put something together that people can understand, especially when for a large number of people, English is not their first language, regardless of where you are.

The other point that you bring up, which is very important, is the issue of women and children. We certainly have had some women come forward to raise their concerns. That's probably something we have to wrestle with to make sure that whatever comes out of this is fair to all. That includes individuals, not bands, and that's something that we have been hoping we would possibly hear more on. I'm glad you brought that issue forward.

At this point I'm going to insert Ejnar Iversen in the agenda. I know he's going to be fairly brief. He'll be followed by Bill Wimpney.

E. Iversen: Good morning, everyone. First, I'd like to give you the question I believe should be first on the list for the upcoming referendum: do you think it's right for the Indians to have treaties which other Canadians cannot have?

The reason I think this should be the first question is that when treaties and the Indian Act are done away with, these complicated land claims will be unnecessary. I firmly believe that in the long run, all of us will be happier when we all become equal under the law. Native Indians should have the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities as the rest of us do — no more and no less. It is as simple as this. Thank you.

B. Wimpney: Chairman Les and hon. members, I'm Bill Wimpney. I've come today to represent the membership of the Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective Association. First, let me talk a little bit about my participation in relation to the aboriginal land claim issue. My participation actually predates the B.C. treaty process. I was first appointed to the B.C. government's Third Party Advisory Committee for aboriginal land claims. That occurred, incidentally, while the Socreds were still in power. I was appointed by Jack Weisgerber when he was minister. At that time we were working on the Nisga'a claim.

Upon the creation of the B.C. treaty process, I was appointed to TNAC, the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, something which in actual fact evolved into full-time participation and a full-time job for me with the B.C. Wildlife Federation as their aboriginal affairs liaison. My organization and the organization that I represent, in the broader context as a fish and game association and a member club of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, has a longstanding participation in this process — a very expensive and very time-consuming participation, to the extent of $200,000 a year and, in

my case, six days a week for almost ten years. So it's not that we take this lightly.

Over the years I've been involved in almost all of the individual RACs in the province. I've gone in there as a representative of the B.C. Wildlife Federation with the intent of facilitating the participation of our member clubs in the local areas, to allow that participation to be relevant and timely and positive to the process.

On TNAC, I also participated in the fish and wildlife and the governance sectoral committees. I was involved in the Columbia River aboriginal fisheries mitigation conference. That was a conference designed around finding a way to mitigate some of the damage to the salmon fishery that's been done by the dams on the Columbia River. I'm also the political action Chair of the Sportfishing Defence Alliance, which is an organization of organizations that was formed to help try to bring the federal government's approach to fisheries into line with what the courts have in fact mandated in the various court cases.

I've participated in many meetings, conferences and processes around aboriginal issues over the last 12 or 14 years. Due to failing health, however, I've scaled my present participation back to being a participant in the Upper Fraser Valley RAC and the Yale RAC. I am the Chair of the fisheries and wildlife sectoral committee of those two RACs as well. I also participate in the northern RAC and the lower mainland RACs, somewhat from a distance.

Our organization met on October 10, 2001, to consider the form and content for treaty referendum questions. The following is a short summary of our group discussion on the topic.

The first item we had to do with was finality. It was generally agreed that treaties must be final and that they should only be able to be reopened by the mutual agreement of all three parties to the process.

You'll note that that sounds like a pretty tough way to deal with the reopening of a treaty, but these treaties are constitutionalized. We didn't feel there should be any less weight attached to the reopening of those treaties than there would be to an amendment to the constitution. We felt that requiring the approval of all three parties would be sufficient safeguard to ensure that they're not done frivolously. The question we suggest is: do you agree that the treaty should be final and may only be reopened by the agreement of all three parties?

Next, the situation may arise where it is not possible to come to final agreement on all issues at this time. Some issues, such as the final details surrounding self-government, may need to be left till later for resolution. However, there is a very real risk in doing this, because it allows various subjects to be cherry-picked and will cause demands to be gradually escalated as the process is revisited.

It is very important that the treaty itself is not signed until it is completely finished. It must also be remembered that items awarded in piecemeal negotiations very often get forgotten when the negotiations resume. Also, the level and scope of self-government that is acceptable to other British Columbians is going to be very strongly influenced by the size of the area over which the first nations will have influence. The question should be: would you agree that all issues subject to treaty may not be resolved at this time and that some items may be best left until some time in the future for resolution?

The issue of self-government is important, and the form of government that this takes is critical. It was generally agreed that the first nations should not be granted a form of government on par with our federal or even our provincial levels of government and that a municipal form of government would be more appropriate. Our question, we suggest, would be: should first nations be granted a form of self-government that is comparable to the municipal level of government?

The next issue seems to have to do with affordability. The cost of treaties must be within our ability to pay without mortgaging the future of our children. If government awards revenues, for instance, from natural resource extraction to aboriginal groups, it will lose that very same source of revenue and the ability to support the cost of the implementation of the treaty. One of government's most important sources of revenue is the extraction of resources. If they forgo that revenue and award that to the aboriginal organizations, how are they then going to pay the bills that are accumulated by the operation of their governments and by our participation in assisting them in that? The question: should treaties be within our ability to pay without mortgaging the future of our children?

The next question may want to deal with the rights of first nations to fish and wildlife resources. It may be appropriate to allocate a reasonable portion of the resource for food, cultural and ceremonial purposes, but this allocation must be a reasonable amount and within the capacity of the renewable resource management and must take into consideration that we also have rights to these resources.

In the negotiations so far, the government has tended to marginalize the rights of non-aboriginals to harvest fish and wildlife. The courts, on the other hand, have stated that our rights must be considered. The question: should the allocation of our fish and wildlife resources be done in an equitable manner that recognizes the rights of first nations and at the same time preserves the rights of ordinary citizens to hunt and fish for sustenance or sport?

The next issue deals with the ongoing contribution we are prepared to make to native self-government. How should natives be taxed? How should a municipal form of government be subsidized? It was the general view that natives should be taxed the same as any other citizen, and their local government should be supported in the same manner and to the same degree as any other municipal government. The suggested question would be: should first nations people and governments receive tax benefits and subsidies that go beyond those of ordinary citizens or municipal governments?

The next issue has to do with education and social programs. To what degree should first nations have

exclusive control over their education and social programs? It would appear that if they are to participate as contributing members of Canadian society, they must be a cohesive part of our social and educational structure. The question: should the first nations educational and social programs be managed in a manner that meets or beats standards established by the provincial government?

Lastly, when British Columbians are asked, "Do you support the settlement of aboriginal land claims?" the answer is generally yes. However, we believe there is a perception that there is little cost attached to doing so. Government must assess the economic priority to attach to the settling of the land claims in order to fit the expense to the annual budget. The suggested question is: what percentage of your annual tax contribution do you feel should be allocated to the settlement of aboriginal land claims?

The foregoing is a summary of the key issues that were discussed. There is, however, some sentiment that our native people should be treated in the same manner as all other Canadians and that the treaties may not really be necessary. While this idea may not be appropriate to the legal and constitutional framework we are working in, the general concept is fair. The foregoing is offered as a distillation of the wide-ranging discussion by a group of people with broad community interests.

M. Hunter: I couldn't let this opportunity to question my former colleague Bill Wimpney go unchallenged. Bill, welcome. It's nice to see you again and to see that you're looking fit.

I'm trying to read between the lines of what you've put to us here. I was going to ask you a question about the affordability, but you did clarify that in your remarks. Is it fair for me to summarize at least part, if not all, of your concern that you're suggesting to us that treaties should be based on the concept of existing aboriginal rights or undefined aboriginal rights for defined treaty rights?

B. Wimpney: Yes. I think that's a principle that was originally designed into the treaty-making process and has been there for probably a century. The previous government in the province here and to a large degree the federal government, I think, have deviated from that concept in that in Nisga'a in particular, there appears to be the creation of new rights without fair exchange of those other rights. In some cases we wind up with a broader spectrum of rights which are more likely to clash with the outside world than what they had before that.

A good example of that was the wildlife section in the Nisga'a treaty. It created an influence by the Nisga'a over an area of land which is considerably larger than that which they actually occupy. This is going to be in conflict with other aboriginal bands and with the very basis of the wildlife management programs as they've existed in the province since the 1800s. It will, in fact, preclude rather than encourage the participation of the other portions of society that are outside the aboriginal communities.

M. Hunter: Thanks. Can I just ask you one other thing, though, to clarify the point on finality or leaving some things to the future? I'm not quite sure I understand what the Fish and Game Protective Association wants. We've heard a fair amount of testimony — indeed, again this morning — that there is some argument to be made for getting on with some practical, on-the-ground issues which kind of come under the rubric of interim measures and that some of these more complicated issues like governance, taxation and others might be either left aside for the time being or put into a provincewide hopper for general, not local, determination. It's not quite clear to me from what you've said here. You said that you think some of these things might be put off, but you talk about the risk of cherry-picking. Can you just explain to me what you think should be done?

B. Wimpney: Some of that is discussion from my club members. There are various opinions amongst the various members as to how to actually approach this thing. Some of it is a little bit of insight of mine into what I've seen in the process so far. To anybody who's been involved in the treaty negotiation process, there are some buzzwords that just used to drive us right through the ceiling — things like interim measures, interim protective measures, treaty-related measures and things like that.

These should not be fearful things. These should be things that government is able to do to enable them to experiment, for instance, and find out if in fact a particular way of dealing with an issue is suitable for the treaty, if it's something that will evolve over time and will work or if in fact it's something that's going to totally fail and should be done away with. The problem up to now is that when these TRMs or these interim measures are done, they tend to be grandfathered into the treaty. They tend to be just accepted as something that should go on because it went on before. They're not specifically identified as experiments. They're not specifically identified as something that isn't necessarily going to be part of the treaty.

If you cast them in stone prior to negotiating the rest of the treaty, they are no longer there for you to use as bargaining in the balancing of the negotiation itself. They've essentially fallen off the table. We saw that an awful lot in Nisga'a. We've seen that in other agreements with organizations that are only now getting to the treaty table such as the Xaxli'p band in the Fountain Valley. In fact, it was the first interim measure that the previous government did with respect to treaties. I don't think the amount of furor and heat and fire created out there as a result of it was anywhere near worth the benefit that was received from it by anybody.

We want to recognize the fact that it may be impossible to sit down to a treaty table and deal with all the items at once. I can tell you, it's a monumental task. Those of us that are supporting the treaty process and participating in it cannot possibly deal with a task that large. By the same token, it's going to take time, and it may not be a good idea to prevent that particular issue from being able to progress. There is industry out there and there's a community out there that has to coexist and has to be able to deal with this.

I guess the best parallel I could give you on this are things like fisheries agreements. If there is some way we can come to an agreement with the local aboriginals with respect to how we manage the fishery which will tide us over until we've got something solid, then there may be some advantage in that. To do otherwise puts you in a position of either having to completely stop harvest so that something they may receive in the treaty isn't damaged or doesn't go away, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater and go the other way and say: "Sorry, we're not going to deal with you at all until you sign the paper." It's an inflexible position that may or may not work. The trap in this is that you have to do it in such a way that there is no doubt in anybody's mind and that there is no legal precedent that will force you into considering what you've done as anything other than a way to get on with business for the time being.

We have to make sure we don't paint ourselves into a corner and remove that potential negotiating item from the table or, worse still, create a regimen or a direction to go which is found to be inappropriate and is unchangeable because we've cast it in stone.

B. Belsey: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. You've obviously spent some time at treaty tables around the province. You're probably familiar with the fact that it's taken some time to work through negotiations. Would you like to share with us some of the problems you've seen and maybe what could be done to speed up these negotiation processes?

B. Wimpney: I was going to say: do you guys want to have lunch sometime today? I guess I could hit some of the serious high points. If I had to point my finger, probably the two most serious obstacles to the process are, one, a lack of knowledge among the great unwashed, among those people who are not participating at the table. It makes it very difficult for those of us who are participating to represent our people and to go back and explain to them why we represented them in the fashion that we have, or to elicit from them direction on how they want to be represented. That direction is seldom competent because of the fact that it's given in the absence of knowledge of what's going on.

Part of that problem comes about as a result of secrecy. The one thing that cannot exist around treaties is secrecy. What we're doing here is building a relationship. We're trying to fit groups of people into our communities. We're trying to fit ourselves into their communities. This is not an exclusive process. That is not going to happen until Canadians understand what's going on — not just the mechanism of the process. The mistake the previous government made in trying to enhance the knowledge of people in the process is that it became just that: all they wanted to talk about was the process. What are we doing? How are we going to do it? What's the mechanical process which we go through? What are the six steps of the B.C. treaty process?

Well, the problem is that the average person doesn't understand those steps and doesn't care about those steps. The part they care about is the next step they're going to take in their life and how it is influenced by the treaty itself. What is needed is an enhanced know-ledge among people of what it's going to do to our communities. Where are we going? Why are we going there? Whenever we talk about programs or anything like this, the question I always like to ask government is: what constitutes success? In the B.C. treaty process no one has ever answered that question for us. So if you take on the task of public education, the focus of that task should be to tell people what constitutes success and, to a large degree, to ask people what they think constitutes success.

This has very much been a case of: "You will go to the party and you will enjoy yourself." Instead of inviting people to the party and letting it develop into something we want to attend and participate in, the government has come down to us and said: "Hey, this is the way it's going to be, and this is how you can take part in it." I understand; you have a monumental task. You know, this boat has been going this direction a long time, and it's going to take a lot to steer it differently. I don't envy you the task. Those are probably the two biggest single issues.

Now, the other one that is a real problem is the importance of balancing the rights of Canadians. The one important factor that always seems to be missed is that to give aboriginal rights is not to take those rights away from other Canadians. If you want to work in that fashion, you have to make sure the rights are compatible, because there is no justification in playing one right off against another when it's possible for the two to co-exist. One right may be diminished to accommodate the other.

If you want to see a classic example of that, you look at what the Sparrow decision and various other decisions from the courts have said about the rights of individual Canadians. In Van der Peet they said very clearly that, yes, aboriginal rights do exist, but they must be considered within the context of the rights of other Canadians so that, in fact, there may be a limiting of those rights. That does not preclude them from being recognized, and it does not preclude them from existing. They also said in the Sparrow decision, for instance, that there are reasons under which aboriginal rights may be infringed and those rights may be….

If it's to the greater common good to balance our society so it doesn't appear to have the racial strife that we're presently trying to create or seem to be trying to create, then I would think that's a laudable reason for the balancing of those rights. I would suggest, for instance, that a commercial right should not necessarily outweigh the right of someone to feed themselves, as has happened this year on the Fraser River. The federal fisheries shut down the fishery for those of us who go to the river and fish with fishing rods to feed ourselves and then opened it to commercial fishery for aboriginals subsequent to that.

These are not questions of legality. These are questions of what is morally right, and the courts have clearly indicated that government has an obligation to balance those rights for a variety of reasons. When they said "conservation" in there, they said "such as conservation." It's only one of the reasons that government has for balancing those rights.

The important thing in anything government does is that there has to be equity. There has to be fairness, but along with that there has to be the appearance of fairness. What I mean by that is what may be fair from the standpoint of an accountant may not appear to be fair from the standpoint of the average person on the street. I'm not suggesting that we take the aboriginal concern and the aboriginal issue down to dollars and cents, because my opinion on this is that we are not trying to build a divorce. We're trying to build a marriage, and like a marriage it requires insight, participation, transparency and an opportunity for everyone to be part of the planning.

V. Anderson: Thank you very much, Bill. You stressed terms like "equity" and "fairness," and I think we all agree that needs to be there. How much, from your experience, are we caught up in a historical reality — past, present and future — that we don't know how to deal with or even acknowledge?

If we take first the question of fairness, in the time that we have settled in this country, the aboriginal people have not been treated with fairness or equity. There were deals made or not made that were not fair and balanced. There were privileges taken away, like the privilege to vote. They had it, and it was taken away, which was not fair and balanced. The decisions made for them by Indian agents — and still by government agents who no longer have that name — have not been fair and balanced. The children who were taken away to school were not treated fairly and with balance in many of the circumstances. So we come with that history, which we're now trying to rectify with that acknowledgment in some cases.

How do we deal with present fairness when we have a history where they're compounding our decisions of what is fair and right? If we were all starting out on an equal playing field, then there would be certain principles that would apply, including our differences. But we're not starting out on an equal playing field. How do we equalize the playing field as well as be fair in the present circumstances?

B. Wimpney: Let me break that down a little bit. First of all, the concept of what I consider to be the collective middle-class guilt that we feel with respect to injustices in the past may drive the issue, but it may not be relevant to the issue. I would suggest that there have been a lot of groups in Canadian history who have been unjustly dealt with in the past, and we haven't addressed any of those either.

When I talk about it being irrelevant, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be insensitive to the plight. But the best advice I've ever heard from anybody on this issue happened while we were doing the negotiation on the Clayoquot agreement with respect to the forest management over there. A chief by the name of Bert Mack told me something one day that I thought was pretty relevant. He said to me: "Bill, the biggest problem with this is that if you're going into the future looking at the past, you're going into it butt first." That sounds a little funny, but there's a word of wisdom there. It comes back to what I talked about a few minutes ago: what constitutes success?

What we need to do is define the relationship that we want to have in the future, define how we're going to live together in our communities so our kids can play in the playground together again instead of playing in four separate corners based on race. Build that process. Come up with that result. Invest whatever's required to do so, and if there's a little bit of capital left over after that, then let's go back and start talking about compensation.

You know from your budgeting talks in government that you have to set priorities. Some things become very important, and some things drop right to the level of insignificance. In the settlement of aboriginal land claims we have to decide what we want to accomplish. I think what we want to accomplish is a relationship that we can all live with and build on and go into a productive future with. That has to be our priority.

If staring at the past is an impediment to that, then we've got to forget about staring at the past until after we've built the future. Like I say, when we can all profit together and create enough to be able to afford it, then we can start talking about the injustices. You'll notice we didn't correct the injustices of the Japanese situation in this province until long after the war was over. It took us a while to get around to it, because it was not a priority. Our priority after the war was rebuilding our society, getting communities back on track and turning Canada back into the place we all wanted to live in. That was the priority, so it was put

on the back burner. I'm not saying it should have been or shouldn't have been, but the reality is that as governments we must have priorities. Our priority with respect to native land claims has to be building the future, building the relationship.

If all we want to talk about is the bad things that were done to a large degree in a well-intended fashion — given the knowledge, the approaches and the attitudes they had back then in the 1800s — today it is offensive as hell. But back then, what we were probably dealing with was misplaced Christian charity. To go into the future spending all our time apologizing for the past is not going to build that relationship; it's only going to sully it. It's only going to make it very, very difficult for us to all look at each other as Canadians and build that future. It cannot happen. At some point it has to be forgotten — for the time being, anyway.

D. MacKay: First of all, I'd just like to thank you very much for your presentation. It's the first time we've had that many questions proposed to us, and that was nice to receive. I was glad to hear you say that the secrecy that surrounds treaties must not happen again. I just look back at the Nisga'a treaty, when that was being developed, shortly after Mike Scott was elected. I worked with Mike, and I asked him if he was able to find out what was on the Nisga'a treaty, because I became interested and happened to live in that neck of the woods up there. I can remember Mike, as a Member of Parliament, wanting to know what was on the table for Nisga'a. He was told that he was not privy to that information. Here's a man that was just elected as our Member of Parliament, and he wasn't privy to the information. The Nisga'a secrecy probably brought us to where we are today. There is so much distrust amongst the non-native people about any future treaties because of Nisga'a and the way that was handled. So I was really glad to see you bring that up.

The question that I wanted to ask you, Bill, as you talked about finality: how do we get there? We have to get there by signing off on a treaty. Do you see any practical means, or do you support the concept — and we've heard it before — of having some way of achieving finality by speeding things up? Do you see putting some deadlines into the treaty process to speed this process up?

B. Wimpney: Australia has done something that I think we can probably look to. They passed into law — and don't quote me on the dates; I believe it was about four or five years ago — a time limitation on the settlement of land claims and treaties. They set ten years as their limit. Whether the limit is ten years or 20 years doesn't matter. At least they have a goal that they have to work towards. Everybody is mandated to be a relevant participant at the table.

Let me give you an example of what a lot of the trouble has been with respect to the slowdowns in what's been happening. I can mention another provincial process that was a fine example of what happened, because I had quite a discussion with our Mr. Owen around the CORE processes for resolving land use planning in the province. What you had was a situation that was time-limited and where they had open participation. Because it was time-limited, they went to the tables and said: "Look, you've got this long to decide how you want to manage the land in your area. If you do not come up with a solution, it will become a ministerial prerogative at that time."

What they did not do, though, was ensure that the aboriginals were at that table. They gave them an opportunity to participate, but that same minister allowed them to go through a separate process and deal with their issues as an aside. The CORE tables were very largely unsuccessful as a result of that. You cannot have a negotiation where you have a party that's able to sit on their hands at the table, remain silent and do nothing but outwait the process.

I'm not saying that a lot of bands want to do that, but there are some. And if you don't think they're patient….They've been waiting 125 years now. It's very easy to outwait whatever government happens to be in power. It happens to be in this time; wait for a change next time. These processes have to be time-limited. The time has to be reasonable in nature. I think there has to be an understanding that it's not something we're going to snap our fingers and do in the term of this government or, possibly, in the term of the next government or even the next couple of governments. But there needs to be a goal to work towards.

It comes back again to what constitutes success. The biggest problem so far, in all the time I've been involved in it, is that nobody has any mandate. The only mandate I've ever heard is: get a treaty. There were no realistic goals set by government. There were no time lines set by government. And when I say time lines, I don't just mean time lines for the government administrators to get on with their work and have their part prepared by that time. I mean time lines that affect everyone at the table.

Having said that, those time lines become very important to those of us who are participating from outside the process. One of the other problems we've always had in the process is that it's tough for us to get up to speed. You've got people who are part-time volunteers that are participating in these processes and that are expected to take a lot of time out of their schedules and try and keep up the pace with full-time participants from government and full-time participants from the aboriginal side of the issue — the hired guns, so to speak. There has to be financial support, secretarial support and administrative support for those other organizations that are participating. Here we are talking about costs again. It's going to go up.

J. Les (Chair): Bill, I'd like you, perhaps, to give us your thoughts on what eventually will be aboriginal government and how that interrelates and interacts with municipal, provincial and federal jurisdictions and what the implications might be for the administrative complexity of the province and what the spinoff

B. Wimpney: You betcha. My personal feelings on aboriginal self-government are that I have no qualms with aboriginal self-government. Aboriginal self-government should be a right like the right that any other Canadians have to assemble in whatever fashion fits into the bigger picture and to govern themselves. If a bunch of people want to get together and call their little community a town and operate as such, there are guidelines for that, and the opportunity is there for them to self-govern to that extent. Aboriginal self-government, from an administrative standpoint, must be a municipal form of government. It must be governed by the same guidelines and the same processes as any other government. The reason for that is because it prevents those kinds of clashes in jurisdictions and those kinds of clashes in administration that make it very, very difficult and unproductive for us in our communities today.

From the standpoint of issues like cultural issues, I believe there is some opportunity for them to have a little bit more self-determination with respect to their cultural issues, but only to the extent that the cultural issue does not clash with an administrative issue in the bigger context. In other words, if something happens to be a cultural pursuit that for reasons of public safety, for instance, is not allowed in the bigger picture, such as pit-lamping, hunting deer at night, discharging firearms at night…. That's a simplistic example, but it's an example where it may be a cultural thing that has been done in the past but which is no longer timely or acceptable.

There still has to be authority on the part of the senior level of government to make those judgments. I would suggest that those judgments should be done on an individual basis. These are things that can be dealt with as they crop up. But from an administrative standpoint, I would like to suggest that a municipal or regional district level of governance…. I hate to use the word "level," because we seem to want to divide our government so it looks like a thermometer. In reality, that's not the way it works. I think "scope" might be more the word. I think the scope of their government should be in an equivalent sense.

There are still going to be difficulties. There are still going to be conflicts between what happens in the aboriginal community and what happens outside the aboriginal community. The difference is that those conflicts will be able to be resolved in the same fashion in which Abbotsford and Chilliwack decide their differences or Chilliwack and Hope decide their differences. There are processes in place, there are protections in place, there are means for dealing with those things, there are means for cooperative effort, and there are means for what happens when we choose to disagree. That's one major area of the treaty that we would not have to negotiate. If we set a basic standard for aboriginal government so all we were dealing with was the little details, it would make a major portion of the treaty very much simpler to do.

On issues of education, on issues of delivery of services within the community, there may need to be some minor adjustments made — cultural aspects of schooling, for instance. That's something that should be there that is over and above the basic provincial curriculum. However, the basic provincial curriculum must be there. When any Canadian goes anywhere with a high school diploma, it should be clear in everybody's mind what that diploma represents. To change that standard in any way whatsoever makes it very, very difficult for children in other communities to be able to move around.

We have the right to freedom of movement in this country, and that right is bulwarked to a large degree by equivalency in education. Our children can go from province to province, from community to community, and are able to go from one education system into another in a relatively seamless fashion because the basic standards of education are very similar. That doesn't preclude them from enhancing that education and including other things in it. All it does is set the basement. I think that should be the standard we use for all forms of government — okay, for all aboriginal self-governments. It should be done on a meet-or-beat basis. They should be allowed as much flexibility as they can without interfering with the other governments and without interfering with other communities, but there should be a minimum standard delivered, a minimum standard of activity and a minimum standard of authority. I think that's the easiest way to deal with it.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Bill. I managed to catch the tail end of your presentation, and thank you for that. You suggested earlier that we shouldn't be focused on the injustices or difficulties with respect to the past if we are to move forward. I think there are many who would argue that we must, of necessity, address the injustices and inequities of the past if in fact we're in a position to move forward — quite the reverse of what you had proposed. In any event, you may wish to comment further with respect to that comment.

My question to you, though, is with reference to question 8 in your presentation, which deals with the whole question of costs associated with agreements. I'm just wondering why it is — I think it's great that you have proposed questions as you have — that your question in and around costs is tied to the annual tax contribution of participants.

B. Wimpney: That was a bit of an underhanded slide on my part, to be quite honest with you. One of the problems I have found — and I deal with a lot of volunteer organizations and a lot of people off the street with respect to aboriginal issues…. One of the biggest single problems with how Canadians feel about aboriginal issues and what makes it difficult for that feeling to be qualified is the fact that they don't understand the cost. You'd be amazed how many people out there do not believe that the money is coming out of

their pocket. I would suggest that Canadians are a very socially just people — okay? We don't want to slam the door. We don't want to say: "No, don't do it." I would think that some of those attitudes would be less frivolously exercised if in fact they understood the personal impact.

A classic example of what happens is when they decided to do the joint funding agreement between the federal and provincial governments with respect to the cost of land claims. Because the federal government can only deliver cash and fish, that became their responsibility, and the provincial government became responsible for lands and resources. Now, what you've got is two levels of government fighting like a couple of seagulls over a dead fish. The reality is that one of the first questions asked was: "Well, how do we value land? How do we place a value on land?" Somebody came up with the idea that we should base the value of land on the timber values. Sounds like a fairly reasonable thing. If it's valuable land for timber, then they should get a smaller quantity. But I'll tell you what. We could give away Kamloops without even making a dent in the program, because the Chopaka finger and the grasslands around Kamloops haven't got any timber value, so that land is worthless. Try and convince somebody who lives in Kamloops that their land is worthless.

Why that quantification of land is important is because the provincial government is going to donate a quantity of land, and it's going to have a dollar value. The federal government is going to donate cash or fish in equivalent value, you see. So how much fish and cash is the land around Kamloops worth?

Well, I could go on and expound on this, and I could turn this thing into a whirlwind that would confuse everybody. Quite frankly, that's what's happened to us for the last 14 years. But the simplicity of this whole thing is that regardless of what it costs or regardless of who contributes it, it is the taxpayer that is contributing that money. It is the taxpayer that is funding the settlement of aboriginal claims. I think the taxpayer would support the funding of aboriginal claims, but I think the fashion in which the support is given would be varied somewhat if they realized the personal impact.

When you talk to somebody about health care, you tell them: "Hey, 40 cents out of every dollar that you spend in this country goes to health care." They understand exactly what you're saying. How would they feel if you told them that 22 cents goes to aboriginal land claims? Would the support still be as broad and unconditional? I think not.

I don't want to see a backlash where they come back and say: "Wait a second. It costs too much. We're not going to do it." I don't think that will happen, but what it does is take both the aboriginals and the non-aboriginals in the community and educates them to the cost, the reason for enhancing their participation and their knowledge and the importance of how big the issue really is. We put a dollar value on it; we give it a priority. Then we can justify doing what we have to to do it. Everybody buys into the process. Everybody takes ownership of the issue. That's what's lacking. In the past that hasn't happened. It's been very much an us-and-them thing.

I have no other presenters at this point on my agenda. Assuming that's the case, we will recess until 2 o'clock at which point we have five further presenters on for the time period between 2 o'clock and 3:45 this afternoon.

J. Les (Chair): All right. It's 2 o'clock, so we will get the meeting underway again. The first presenter we have this afternoon is Mary Helen Hatch.

M. Hatch: Good afternoon. I suspect you are hoping very few people know the following, and I'll paraphrase: you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time but not all the people all the time. Abraham Lincoln said this in nineteenth-century U.S.A., if I understand correctly.

I will begin with some meanings from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. I hope you're listening and not reading along with me. You can read it later. My voice may not distract you enough. Ignorance, a noun, means lack of knowledge. Stupidity, a noun, means lack of intelligence. "You can cure ignorance, but you can't cure stupidity." I can't remember who said this, as I like to give credit where credit is due. Also, here are some books, all of which can be accessed from local libraries and which I highly recommend you read at your earliest convenience if you haven't read them already, especially before you complete your report due November 30, 2001: Stolen Continents by Ronald Wright, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown, Indian Givers by Jack Weatherford and Chrétien, Volume One by Lawrence Martin, chapter 11.

The notice on page A3 of the Abbotsford News of Tuesday, September 25, 2001, headed "Les, Government Want Input on Treaties," infuriated me to say the least. Why oh why are you trying to reinvigorate the treaty negotiation process in this province? This looks like complete, total and absolute one-upmanship by B.C. Liberals. Your actions smack of the deep-seated racism found in this province's history. What is so dreadfully wrong with the current process? Do you really know what you're doing?

The article on page A2 of the Abbotsford News on Saturday, October 13, 2001, headed "De Jong Ordered to Pay Nisga'a Costs: Trio of Liberals on Hook," just proves my point in my biased opinion. I am so disgusted with this government in general, and this committee is not going to help me see B.C. Liberals in a

better light. Your ignorance appears to me to be bordering on stupidity, I truly suspect.

That's the end of my official…. Then I began thinking. I asked my 36-year-old daughter what she thought of the idea of this Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I told her I was coming to speak about the referenda plans, and she said that you people were elected to govern, not to hold referenda, if I understand correctly. Then someone reminded me that was a political promise — hold referenda. I think that was a poor political promise. I think that was in the same boat as your promise to reduce income taxes — cut those right away. Now we're in a very different situation. I think your actions about holding referenda, in general, is passing the buck, and it's going to cost more money. And I don't think you're going to get any further ahead than if you did not hold referenda.

I'm Mary Helen Hatch. I'm from Abbotsford. I composed this on October 5, and I'm presenting it today. I am prepared to answer any questions that you may have. You may not; you may want to shoot me and throw me out.

The next presenter is Clint Hames speaking on behalf of the Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory Committee.

C. Hames: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am going to read a presentation here, the executive summary of which will be posted behind me via PowerPoint. I felt if I came at you from two different directions, you'd get the message more clearly than if I just sat here and spoke with you.

Let me say that the Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory Committee appreciates this opportunity to present some of our thoughts regarding British Columbia's treaty process, aboriginal relations in this province generally and the upcoming referendum. Before I start, I want to give you some sense of what our committee has done over the past six years. Created in 1995, our Treaty Advisory Committee has about 30 observers, elected officials representing six municipalities and eight electoral districts throughout the Fraser Valley regional district. Our Treaty Advisory Committee has been active at three negotiating tables over the last numbers of years: the in-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, Stó:lō nation and Yale first nation tables. We've taken our role in the treaty process very seriously and have committed large amounts of our own resources, energy and time to be a proactive and constructive participant in this process. Prior to our committee being formed, we were the first regional district that I am aware of to have an aboriginal issues committee dedicated to addressing these important issues and building relationships with our first nations neighbours.

We've developed what we call our guiding principles and general interests in the treaty-making process. As their title suggests, these documents lay out what we believe to be some of the core principles that should guide treaty-making and the interests that our local governments represent in that process. Key to both of these documents is our desire to build lasting relationships with our neighbouring first nations and to deal with aboriginal issues cohesively in the Fraser Valley. Our point is that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, are interested in having these issues settled and real and long-term certainty achieved.

I'll be providing members of the committee with a binder that includes our guiding principles, the general interests and a memorandum regarding non-member representation and other relevant information that we thought you'd find useful. I will do that after the presentation so that you don't spend your time reading it instead of listening to me.

Additionally, our experience as a community — the community of Chilliwack — comes from having eight distinct first nations reserves within our municipal boundaries, three additional first nations bands as immediate neighbours and housing the administrative and legislative home of the Stó:lō nation, which represents 23 area first nations. Regionally, our experience comes from being home to over 40 of British Columbia's first nations. Local governments and jurisdictions of the Fraser Valley are committed to building relationships so that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people can live and work together towards a better common future for all.

Let me turn now to our presentation. We've heard it said many times that treaties are the answer, but I think we need to ask ourselves: what's the question? It's not clear that we have clearly articulated what our goals and objectives are or should be in treaty-making. This, at its core, has been one of the fundamental challenges to the treaty process and aboriginal relations generally. Before we can negotiate treaties or anything else, for that matter, we need to know what we want, where we want to end up, and analyze the best way of getting there. I don't believe we've taken the time to figure out what we really want out of the treaty process.

We've heard phrases such as "legal certainty" and "incremental certainty" used to provide reasons for the process. To some extent, this is accurate. At some point the legal aspects of certainty must be considered. However, we've also seen that practical and results-oriented objectives are not getting the attention they should. Treaties cannot be focused solely on processes. Process is not a goal. Treaties are not and should not be the only vehicle we use to solve problems. Indeed, treaties by themselves should only be a tool to a broader objective: the reconciliation of aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests in this province, and building relationships that break down barriers and create opportunities for all British Columbians.

The current process is mired in rhetoric and positioning. Although it's called an interest-based approach, too many times we've seen the contrary at the various tables I've been involved in. The process needs increased transparency, especially in the area of man-

dates. We heard this from Mr. Wimpney. Some of the provincial and federal mandates are secret, while others appear not to exist. Governments could move this process along a great deal by simply informing all of the interested parties what their mandates are. This will not weaken government's position; rather, we believe it will strengthen it.

Having principles but not knowing how they're going to be applied is frustrating. It has resulted in divergent positions by government at different tables. While flexibility is important, it must be based on sound and transparent policy and sound legal analysis. We need a complete and thorough re-examination, I think, of what we're trying to achieve. For example, legal certainty may be achieved through a text of a negotiated treaty or, as some have suggested, incrementally, but it's no guarantee to what I would call practical certainty — that is, having arrangements and relationships in place that everyone understands and respects. Treaties by themselves cannot prevent direct action or litigation. In some instances they may promote such action.

Relationships, with or without treaties, can go a long way to securing, at a practical level, the kind of certainty I think many want. In this context, it's important to offer a few comments regarding the British Columbia Treaty Commission. Recently it released its annual report and gave what many are calling a frank critique of the process. I think that's accurate. However, the problems identified by the commission have been apparent for many years. One cannot help but reference the analogy of the wheels falling off a cart when it comes to the treaty process. In this case not only have the wheels fallen off the cart; the cart's on fire, and the horse has long ago bolted.

My point is this: commendable as the report is, the commission must be more proactive and willing to intervene. The problems identified by the commission are not new. The commission or some other entity's role should be to set rules for the parties when it's clear that progress and productivity are not being achieved. An independent commission must truly be distinct from the parties as a keeper of the process, not continue to promote the process at some tables where it's clear that the parties are not ready or willing to negotiate. Instead of being a keeper of the process, this commission has acted more like an advocate for the process. These are very different roles.

Also, the commission at times has appeared to be an advocate for first nations. While first nations may need advocacy, it is not the commission's role to be an advocate for first nations in this process. Promoting the process for the sake of the process is not constructive and has led, in some cases, to increased entrenchment of positions and weakened relationships. Treaties cannot be about institutionalizing a process and expanding an industry. We must create an environment that understands that not all first nations want or are ready for treaties, instead of perpetuating a policy environment of "either you're in or you're out."

We need a much broader and comprehensive public policy framework that looks at treaties as being part of the solution, not the whole solution. A strong, independent, neutral, non-political proactive body — either the commission reconstituted or a different entity — must be able to intervene, promote solutions and make binding decisions. This latter point regarding an entity that could make decisions that bind the parties may be particularly relevant with respect to the awkward position the federal government finds itself in. On the one hand, it is at the table as an independent party negotiating on behalf of Canada. On the other hand, the federal government is attempting to negotiate with first nations to whom it owes a fiduciary responsibility. This apparently cumbersome and conflicting situation could be resolved with the establishment of an independent tribunal sanctioned by the parties to make binding decisions to further the goals of the process.

We need principles to guide our negotiations. One of the most important things our committee did was establish principles to guide our involvement and interests in the treaty negotiations. Our principles speak to issues such as the application of the Charter, efficiency in government, the need for treaties to promote aboriginal involvement in B.C. society and not to be a barrier to participation, the consistency of standards and economic development and the importance of open, transparent and accessible government for all people. These principles required us to reflect on what kind of British Columbia we wanted once reconciliation was achieved. We've provided copies of these principles to the committee for your information. They'll be in the handout at the end.

I understand there are some principles that have been identified by the provincial and the federal governments. I think they are here today. These principles have to be more than words on a page; they must be based on a real vision of where we want to go. They have to have been developed with the input of British Columbia, and that's why I'm particularly excited about this process. I hope it provides an opportunity for all the people of British Columbia to articulate what they see as the principles. Those principles need to be developed with the people of British Columbia. The governments of British Columbia and Canada must develop their principles first, then look at ways to achieve and utilize these principles in addressing aboriginal issues generally, not just through the treaty process.

In addition to British Columbia having its own vision and principles, all of the parties involved in the negotiation should also agree on a common set of negotiation principles before negotiations begin. For example, we need only look to the varying interpretations surrounding the Supreme Court of Canada's 1997 Delgamuukw decision to see the need for a set of common negotiating principles. Many treaty tables have been severely curtailed in their ability to move forward because of the different realities in which government and first nations exist when it comes to interpreting Delgamuukw.

When driven through the treaty process, the differing perspectives regarding Delgamuukw and other judicial decisions have resulted in parties moving further apart rather than coming together. If we can't agree on a common interpretation of Delgamuukw, then we only have one of two choices: (a) put the issue of Delgamuukw aside and negotiate in good faith or (b) go back to the courts for additional clarity on these matters.

What we cannot continue to support is parties trying to have it both ways, citing Delgamuukw when it appears favourable and, when it does not assist their position, claiming we must negotiate an outcome. We are either negotiating solutions, or we're not. We must learn from that experience.

The mandates we develop must be tailored to be proactive and responsive to reach settlements. Certainty must be viewed more practically and achieved in incremental steps rather than one giant, legally focused step. We must be willing to be innovative and deal with all first nations, even those who choose not to engage in treaty negotiations. They're not going anywhere, and neither are we. We need not only a better treaty process but other processes to deal with all of the issues we're facing. There will be no quick fix to these immensely complex and important issues. As a sidebar, there are 23 Stó:lō bands within this particular area, as I mentioned. Only 17 have agreed to be in the treaty process. Where do the six bands go, post-treaty, for governance of land and for access to resources when they are a part of that larger picture?

What we need is a long-term strategy to deal not only with treaties but with aboriginal issues generally. We need to see treaties as one piece of a bigger puzzle. We need aboriginal relations policy first with treaties being one tool, albeit an important tool, to reach our objectives of reconciliation and practical certainty. We need to build our relationships with aboriginal people by aggressively looking at initiatives such as servicing agreements, partnership agreements and ensuring that first nations people are receiving services at levels similar to non-aboriginal people in this province.

Once this level playing field and trust is established, treaties will make more sense. Modern treaties in a province like British Columbia are complicated and require a high degree of involvement by all concerned, and they will take a lot of time. Historical treaties and the modern land claims agreements in Canada's north dealt with land that was largely undeveloped. There were no provincial authorities to deal with, and a much simpler legal environment existed. Even the Nisga'a treaty, which took many decades to negotiate, had to deal with only a limited set of outside interests in the Nass Valley.

As you know, British Columbia, particularly southern British Columbia, is developed and has a large number of legitimate interests that must be considered. It makes reconciliation a bigger challenge. Supreme Court decisions — Sparrow, Badger, Marshall, Mitchell, Delgamuukw — all underscore the constantly shifting legal environment impacting on treaty negotiations and aboriginal–non-aboriginal relations generally. In this sense, it's important to recognize that although the federal government has experience negotiating modern land claims agreements, it has no more experience than British Columbia in terms of negotiating modern, comprehensive treaties in developed areas such as the southern area of this province.

The federal government also has a responsibility to finance Indian reserves and their governments. We are all aware of the shortcomings of the existing infrastructure and basic human services of many first nations communities in British Columbia. We must continue to put pressure on and work with the federal government and first nations so that all British Columbians, regardless of their race or where they live, have a reasonably comparable standard of living and housing. Without this standard being achieved or even remotely close to being achieved, the abilities of treaties to provide practical certainty will be very limited.

We must ensure that whatever treaty or other arrangements are put in place, they promote first nations self-sufficiency and economic stability. We continue to have concerns that the present land tenure system being promoted at most treaty tables will not result in any substantive changes enabling first nations people to become full participants in our province's economy. The ability for individuals to borrow and mortgage is central to our economic freedom and prosperity. Economic integration is key to the future long-term success of first nations in our province.

The bigger issues surrounding treaties and aboriginal relations in British Columbia must be based, in part, on making aboriginal people full participants in our province's economy. Certainly, the existing Indian Act cannot do this. Treaties by themselves cannot do this. However, step by step, a difference can be made. We need to focus our attention not only on the so-called big-bang fixes such as treaties but also on incremental practical arrangements. These arrangements could focus on economic development and partnership opportunities, governance initiatives, increased accountability, access to basic infrastructure and better relations between non-aboriginal and aboriginal people. Local governments can offer a large amount of experience, expertise and initiative in this area. Once progress starts on the ground in communities, treaties will certainly become not only more realistic as goals but also more palatable.

We've got a lot of work to do on what kind of British Columbia we want. Let me give you an example. Our treaty advisory committee began raising the issue of non-member representation. By non-member representation I mean the ability of non–first nations people living on first nations land to have a voice in decisions that impact them. This is critical to democracy but also, practically speaking, important to first nations in their ability to tax those using their services. You can't have taxation without representation. Early in the treaty process this issue was not on the radar screen of governments. Of course, for local governments this issue is essential, but the provincial and federal governments

In July 1999 our staff reviewed federal and provincial policies as they stood, highlighting the lack of coordination, complexity and clarity with respect to their policies. In December '99 our committee wrote our concerns to the federal minister, Minister Nault. In July 2000 the minister responded. Although our letter spoke specifically to non-member representation, the minister's response merely affirmed that the rights and interests of all Canadians are carefully considered, with no details on the status of federal policy around the topic. In November 2000, at a servicing agreement workshop, the topic was explored related to taxation issues. In December 2001 British Columbia finally tabled a paper on non-member representation at our servicing agreement workshop.

Our concern is this: how can chapters be finalized for treaties that will receive constitutional protection when we've not identified or analyzed critical issues such as non-member representation? We've now focused on non-member representation. What other issues have we missed or have we yet to identify? We continue to remain concerned about the lack of clear information on how local governments will be compensated for loss of tax revenue if lands currently within a local government's tax base become part of treaty settlement, such as lands sold on a willing seller, willing buyer basis.

What about the issue of how various jurisdictions will fit together once treaties are negotiated? I'm aware of a number of treaty land proposals that would have seen a large number of separate and distinct parcels of land coming within a first nations governance authority. What I have not seen is any recognition or meaningful analysis from government on how governance dispersed over a large and separate area would function practically on the ground. These are the types of issues that local governments are concerned with. It's these issues that we, along with first nations, will be left with once the negotiators from Victoria and Ottawa leave.

How can a treaty process be so advanced in the sense of offers being made and agreements-in-principle being initialled when fundamental questions concerning democratic principles, governance and service delivery still remain outstanding?

I must also add a comment regarding the importance of public education. How is it that when it came to selling the Nisga'a treaty, there is no apparent shortage of resources, and yet there continues to be a vacuum in the province when it comes to resourcing public education regarding treaties generally? Local governments are more than prepared and are well placed to take an active role in public education, but resources must be provided. We hope that an ancillary benefit to your committee's work will be to advance awareness and information regarding these important issues.

Another key area that requires focus is consultation and the regulation of resources: forestry, oil, gas, fishing and mining. Over the past eight years there has been increasing expectation that many treaties would get British Columbia out of the business of having to deal with aboriginal people in any substantive way. Nothing could be further from the truth. While treaties can result in increased certainty, treaties also carry with them specific consultation requirements and a duty for government to review its regulatory regime to ensure it's in line with the treaty.

Regardless of whether we have treaties or not, as a province we'll continue to have a duty to consult in various areas on government actions and decisions that may impact on aboriginal and treaty rights. All governments in Canada are struggling with this consultation and regulatory burden. If we're going to move forward on the aboriginal issue generally, either by treaty or otherwise, we must be proactive and resourceful in establishing and maintaining a sensitive and balanced regulatory regime that meets government's duty to aboriginal people but also ensures the continued economic growth and development of British Columbia by ensuring stable and reliable access to resources. This is a key component of what's currently missing in British Columbia.

First nations are struggling with consultation also. They're pressed for resources. There is also a perception by some that consultation is tantamount to a first nations veto. This is not accurate. This is where governments must show leadership. Governments must undertake to complete their due diligence to ensure that first nations views, information and opinions are taken into account when governments act or make decisions that may impact on aboriginal or treaty rights. However, once this consultation is complete, I understand that only in exceptional circumstances could a first nation block an action or decision. Rather, if government has done its consultation properly and has communicated its decision clearly and thoroughly, it should be able to act and keep the province moving forward.

We must be leaders in this challenge of moving ahead on aboriginal issues. Our province needs such leadership at this time. The fact that this committee was created is a positive signal that leadership and innovative thinking are seen as important elements to moving ahead. I add only one caution here: ensure that you continue to look outside the box. After eight years of being told that treaties are the only answer, some will find it difficult to explore innovation, competition and entrepreneurship as principles are developed for a new way to deal with these problems. Government must look outside itself to ensure that the advice it's receiving accounts for all the opinions available.

I began by stating that if treaties are supposed to be the answer, we need to know what the question is. Part of the dilemma is that there's no one question. These are complex issues that require a series of questions and a series of answers.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, treaties are not the only answer but one of many that must be considered and utilized. We must have the courage to say that what we have in place now is not working. Life is not getting better for the vast majority of aboriginal

people in this province. However, it must get better if we're all going to prosper. We need to step back and ask ourselves what our true objective is. We need to clarify that, and the rest will follow. Without a vision of where we want to go, no number of interim and treaty-related measures will get to the heart of our problem.

What, then, are the questions? We know the present process is not working, but does everybody agree on that? There's no use asking for a new or improved set of negotiating principles if they're simply going to be plugged into a broken process. We could ask: do you think the current treaty process is working towards building lasting relationships and a successful British Columbia for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people?

Of course, the issue is bigger than any one question, but recognizing that the current process is broken and acting on that is a step forward. As I said earlier, we have to take a broad approach to solving these issues. We can't create treaties at the expense of developing healthy and meaningful relationships and communities at the local level.

The government of British Columbia must develop a vision of what we want this province to look like in the coming decades. It speaks to action, commitment and leadership, not to processes or a one-size-fits-all approach. This is not about choosing one or the other. It's about British Columbia settling aboriginal claims and moving forward together.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Clint, for your presentation. There's a lot of material there, and you had to really fly to get it in. In any event, we'll have to take some time to review your presentation, I expect.

A comment and then a question, one of many that come to mind. You made reference to the necessity of parties agreeing to common principles. What comes to mind when you make reference to that, to which I think most of us would agree, is the principles enumerated presently within the B.C. Treaty Commission's terms of reference. There are a number of principles to which the parties have agreed. Apparently that doesn't satisfy you. Beyond that, what kind of a question might one formulate to address the questions you have raised with respect to the future of the B.C. Treaty Commission itself, be it reconstituted, as you suggested, or in some way changed from the way it presently functions?

C. Hames: I'm not sure you could ask a referendum question that would say, "Do you think the B.C. Treaty Commission has been effective in its role?" because I don't think people largely understand the role it plays. The problem with the principles that have been established — and it's been articulated a couple of times — is that those principles haven't been articulated by the vast number of British Columbians and formed into a guiding set of principles that they feel some ownership over. I think what's happened is that somewhere along the line a set of principles appeared that said: "This is going to guide us in treaty-making." Average, common, garden-variety folks on the street, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, have not had an opportunity at any point in time to say: "Yeah, that clearly reflects my views," or "That doesn't reflect my views."

I think one of the problems with this process is that the principles were developed in a room full of people, and we didn't have input. The mandates are largely secret, and we're not sure at times what they are. You have a whole group of people, sort of average British Columbians, that are saying: "What the heck is going on? Yeah, we want to settle this issue. We really want to settle this issue, but this isn't the way to build any consensus around it." That's why there's such fear about a referendum question, because largely people out there aren't sure what is going on. They're not sure where the process is at. They have a sense it's expensive, but I don't think they understand where we're at, and that's because they were never involved in developing this process. I'm not sure if the previous government didn't think the communities had the capacity to understand and they thought: "Well, we'd better just press on." I think they do have the capacity to understand, and I think that's where we start with any process — finding out what British Columbia wants, not assuming what they want, because I think they've made some wrong assumptions. I don't know if that answered your question or not.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. It was a lot of material, and it's very thoughtful. I think many people would agree that the treaty process as it is now, and has been, has not worked. Just from my own area that I come from, we had an AIP voted on, and 60 percent of the membership turned it down. It's created a real mess, because six bands voted for it and six bands voted against it. Now they don't know where to go.

What we're going through as this committee, in giving advice to the Legislature, is that we are trying to improve the process, because it hasn't been working. There may be one or two nations out there that may be near an agreement, but who knows where that will go? From the province's position we certainly want to see it moving along so that we can get some agreements, whether it's a final agreement at the end or it's agreements as we go along, so they can move ahead and get into the economics of the province, do the things that first nations want to do, such as their health, etc. From your position as a longtime TAC member, where do you see the federal position in all these negotiations?

C. Hames: This morning my friend Bob Hall said: "Don't take silence as a no," or "Don't read anything

into the silence." I'm going to be honest here. This is a provincial committee, and it's a committee that has been constituted to find out what's happening from a provincial perspective. I'm not sure that the federal government's taking this process that seriously. I have a sense, and it's been rumoured, that somewhere in a back room someone figured out that the longer they drag this process out, the cheaper it's going to be for the federal government, because if we ever settle, they can't afford to do that. That's just kind of a fun rumour that's out there.

The fact of the matter is that I haven't seen much evidence that the feds are taking this very seriously. I'll give you an example, and that's the Stó:lō people in this particular area. If there was one chapter of a treaty or one interim measure agreement that would be the closest to who they are, it would be fisheries. Stó:lō means people of the river, and obviously the salmon fishery is extremely important culturally and economically to Stó:lō people. On the day after months and months of no negotiations, the Stó:lo said: "We're ready to sit down and negotiate, and what we want to do is talk about an interim agreement on fish."

I attended that meeting. It looked a lot like this. On the Stó:lō side of the table they probably had 15 to 20 people whose major interest in life was fish and the fishery resource. They wanted to negotiate and talk about fish. On the federal government side sat — and this is no reflection on that individual — one junior negotiator from the federal government. This was the single most important day in the Stó:lō's history. They were there to talk about the single most important thing in their lives, fish, and the federal government showed it no more respect than to send one junior negotiator — not even anyone to take notes on the presentation the Stó:lō were making. The federal government said: "Well, we'll get back to you on that."

One of the great frustrations, sitting at the treaty table, is the fact that people have mandates. The people sitting at the table know clearly what their mandates are, but there's always three meetings. There's always the meeting where you receive the information. Then you have to say: "We're going to take this back to our people. We'll mull it around and get back to you." Then there's a meeting where they come back and ask six questions of clarification, and then everybody has to go away again. Then there's a meeting where they come back and say: "Well, you know, we can't deliver on that because our mandate says we can't do that."

If it were me, I'd say that right up front. In the days when your Chair was our mayor and he saw the issue one way and I saw it another way, we just negotiated right there. We didn't say: "I'll get back to you on that." It's frustrating to see the amount of money that's spent when a negotiator knows what their mandate is, knows clearly that what's being asked for is not something that can be delivered, and it takes three meetings to deliver that message. I think that when you have a federal system, it's even further removed than a provincial system. It's frustrating — the money that is spent on doing that.

I'm speaking candidly — how candidly can you speak when you're in a roomful of people and the press is here and Hansard is here? — but I've not had an impression that the federal government is at all interested. I'm probably in big trouble now for saying that, but what the heck.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Clint, for your presentation. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to read it in Hansard, because it was an awful lot of information. I apologize if you touched on this point, but I'll ask the question anyway. You mentioned non-aboriginals living on treaty land. I'm wondering if you've given any thought to aboriginals that aren't living on treaty land and how they are going into fit into this picture, these negotiations.

C. Hames: I've given it thought to the extent that I think it's a serious issue. There are more aboriginal people not living on reserves than living on reserves in British Columbia. I don't know, quite frankly, how they are going to be accommodated within the treaty process. It's why I'm not sure that treaties are going to be the answer. If what we're looking for is to make the lives of aboriginal people better and to have a better standard of living in general terms…. If that's one of our key objectives here — and I think it should be — the treaty process will not address the issue of high unemployment rates among aboriginal people not living on reserves. It will not address any of that. I, quite frankly, think one of the major failings here is that this process seems to only address people currently living on reserves, and there's no mention of how we deal with that particular issue.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Clint, for your presentation. A couple of quick questions. The issue you touched on as far as using local communities and local government to help put the message out there and work together to inform the public — could you expand on that a little bit for me? Knowing that UBCM has an aboriginal affairs committee, are you talking more on the treaty process per se that we're presently in?

C. Hames: Yeah, our experience with the treaty process and treaty advisory committees is that we would be well positioned to host public meetings, information meetings, do all of those kinds of things that will bring people closer to the process that we're engaged in, but we don't, quite frankly, have the resources to do that. Ours is one of cap in hand and knee-pads on to the provincial government to try to get some support for our participation. In the Fraser Valley they've been better than in most regions in terms of providing resources.

Our local governments are still providing the bulk of the resources to the committees, and there are simply not enough resources there to engage the public in a significant way about what's happening with treaties.

I think it's the right thing to do. Local governments simply don't have the resources, by themselves, to do it. Nor should they. It's not necessarily their issue. We spent a lot of time asking the province for the opportunity to engage our community, but we simply didn't have the resources to do that.

B. Lekstrom: Following through on that, if that process was something that could be worked out, would you see the ability for the first nations to effectively, within the community's presentation, be at the table as well, as part of the information presenters?

C. Hames: Absolutely. I don't see a reason why you wouldn't do that. It would only make sense to engage in that way. One of our problems — not necessarily locally, but globally — has been that first nations have, in some instances, rejected the notion of local government involvement in this process. In some cases, first nations have left bargaining sessions when local government reps have shown up. Although we have a memorandum of understanding with the province for local government participation, it has not always been welcomed by first nations communities. In our experience with the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, the Yale and the Stó:lō, we've always been welcome at the table. There are other examples where local governments have not been welcome.

B. Lekstrom: Just to follow up on the information that we talked about — communication — probably both sides of the negotiations have done a pretty poor job over the years of putting the information to the public as to what the real facts are and what the issues are. Having said that, with your background in local government, can you give me your vision of what a self-government model may look like for first nations? Do you favour following the local government model that now exists in municipalities?

C. Hames: It's a tricky question. I'm not that happy with the powers and authorities that local governments have right now. John and I have had this conversation before. I'm not sure there's a need for provincial government. [Laughter.] I think local and federal would be just fine, in a theoretical sense.

I think the community charter provides us with an incredible opportunity here for first nations self-government. The community charter is a document that is looking to provide more authority and autonomy to local governments, something beyond what we have under the current Municipal Act. I can see the community charter being a point of departure for negotiations about a form of self-government. We don't even know what it looks like. Should it be municipal or provincial or federal-style self-government? I don't know. I think there are aspects of all of those that could be used. My sense is that it should be something like a community charter, where you're negotiating something beyond a municipal government, with more accountability and more authority.

Instead of asking if it should be municipal or federal-style government, if you're going to give something to a first nations government, see if a municipal government would like that same authority. You may resolve a lot of other issues by reconstituting what authorities a municipal government has. There may be things that are better delivered at a local level. In the context of what kind of governance should be given to first nations, why don't we open the book and look at governance at all levels? I think the community charter gives us that opportunity. If you said to me today, "Should it be federal, provincial or municipal-style?" I'd say that the only thing that's going to work is a municipal-style government. The others — there are so many impractical notions about that.

First of all, governance has always been defined by geographic area. Any structure of government we have in the world today — the successful ones — have been defined by drawing a line on a map over a certain geographic area. That's what you govern; you govern that particular area. The rules you develop apply to that area. Unsuccessful governments have said: "We're going to draw a line around there, and only certain kinds of people will be governed within that line or will have to follow this particular set of rules." I hesitate to say race-based governance, because that seems to be kind of a flashpoint for some people. But quite frankly, governance structures were meant to define rules over a certain area of land, not rules over certain kinds of people. It's very difficult to try to transpose a governance structure that is based on who your parents were and what race you are over a system that was developed over a long, long period of time and that was really defined by a line on a map, a geographic area. That's why I think only municipal-style governance, because that's where citizenship matters the least. Does that make any sense at all?

B. Lekstrom: Yeah, it does and certainly touches on the charter and where it could lead us. If we were all to be treated equally that way, as far as the ability to govern, that's something that we support.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Clint, for your presentation, and I would like to thank your colleagues around the treaty advisory table too. That was very thoughtful and exhaustive, and I look forward to reading it. You said you got yourself into trouble talking about the feds. I personally don't think so.

I want to ask you a question that arises out of your comments about Stó:lō and fish. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the Stó:lō right to fish was very limited. It didn't include commerce. What is your view? Would the treaty advisory committee's view be that a treaty should establish rights that go beyond existing aboriginal rights? Is that a principle we should be looking at? Should treaty rights go beyond what we already know are existing aboriginal rights which, in the case of Stó:lō fishers, have been set in the highest court of the land?

C. Hames: Maybe I'll come at that question a different way. Obviously, I don't support the notion of a constitutionally protected commercial fishery. I'm not sure that's the best approach, but I do support the notion of an aboriginal fishing strategy that provides for commercial sale of fish, but not necessarily a constitutionally protected right to commercially sell fish. I'm not sure if that answers your question.

M. Hunter: Well, I don't want to focus on the fish, because you and I and others in the room could get into a debate that could take far longer than we have. I just wanted to use that as an example, because you will have heard at the treaty advisory committee from negotiators and advisers to different governments that one of the ideas of treaty-making is to exchange undefined aboriginal rights for defined treaty rights. My question to you in the case of Stó:lō, because you raised it as an example, where the fishing right is very clear because Ms. Van der Peet went to court, is: what is the view locally about whether or not that right should be reflected in a treaty? Or should the treaty go beyond?

C. Hames: I don't necessarily believe the treaty should go beyond and define rights beyond what courts have established, but I think that if the central issue is that Stó:lō needs more fish in order to economically survive with a commercial fishery, then we ought to sit down and talk about that and why they need that and what that does to other issues there. I'm not saying they should have rights beyond what the courts have already given them.

I think that the negotiation process is a give-and-take process. There may be occasions in negotiations when we're actually providing something that goes beyond what a court has said someone is entitled to, because essentially the court has said: "Look, you can leave it to us." Goodness knows, I don't want to leave this to the Supreme Court of Canada. I've seen some of the work they've done so far, and I really think this should be negotiated.

The trouble I'm having with what's happening now is that it's sort of an à la carte thing. I think on the part of some first nations, they're saying: "We want Delgamuukw plus." And really what the court said was: "Here's some issues around Delgamuukw. We don't think that title has been extinguished; here's the test, and here's all these things. We don't want to have to decide where it exists. You go negotiate where title exists and what those rights look like. Go and negotiate; don't come to us." That's what we're trying to do.

That may be more because there are some rights out there that haven't even gone to court yet. What we end up negotiating may be more than what a court would have provided in some instances. Should our principle be that it should be equal to or less than what we think we would have gotten out of court? I don't know if I support that. I'm not sure I support that. There are a whole lot of rights out there I don't even know about yet.

M. Hunter: Well, certainly that's the point. My question was in cases where the right has been clearly constrained by a litigation. That was my question. I think you've answered it.

C. Hames: If it's already been constrained by legislation, I'm not sure anybody has a mind to go beyond that. I certainly don't, but there are things out there we don't know yet.

V. Anderson: I appreciate your perspective coming from a community point of view, because it seems to me that we all live in communities. We work in our communities, and we get our livelihood, our recreation, our culture and our employment out of those communities. I'm wondering if focusing on community is a way of getting at the crux of what we're trying to do. There are so many webs in this. There are rights, historical rights, economic prosperity for the future, and there's catching up.

We're also talking a great deal about relationships. Are we talking about personal relationships, primary relationships, government relationships or the relationships that we have in the community? Is there a way that we can focus on what the vision is, where the vision is and who it's for? When I hear both aboriginal and non-aboriginal talking, it seems to me that the vision is that all of us together will share a common country. How do we do that? Is that the theme we're trying to ask?

C. Hames: That would make a speech for another presentation, Val. I think you've captured in many respects the kind of dilemma. This is about community, and it is about relationships. My big fear right now is that the process we've had imposed upon us here is driving us apart. It isn't bringing us together in any way, shape or form. It's become very adversarial, very cut and dried or black and white. We're sort of losing what this is really all about, and that's building stronger communities and building better relationships.

Currently what's being negotiated, I don't see as being much different than what we've lived with under with the Indian Act in terms of the land tenure system, as an example. What is the difference between treaty settlement land and land reserve for Indians under the Indian Act today? When I look at it, the only difference is that you don't have to go to Ottawa to get permission. Still, the way it's held and all of those things don't help an individual become self-sufficient. They still don't own anything; they still don't own a piece of land. I'm willing to be shown that there's difference there or that could work, but at this point in time I'm not sure how you economically integrate those two systems. You're not building communities; you're building separateness within communities. I really worry that it's not going to take us down the right road when it comes time to negotiate.

The other point I want to make is that I agree with Mr. Wimpney in the sense of interim measures. I know

it's jargon, but I think the idea that we can do this incrementally is really important. Once we start putting in place agreements…. We do this all the time at the municipal level for water, sewer and other things. Every time you do an agreement and you live up to it, you build the relationship further. We can do incremental agreements in the area of fishery and maybe in the area of forestry and those kinds of things — stuff that makes sense, not some of the stuff that has been delivered.

My fear is that a lot of the expectation first nations people have right now out of Delgamuukw is — I'm presenting this the way it was presented to me: "We never ceded title, so it all belongs to us. What you can't give back, we want compensation for, and what you can give back, we want." That is their interpretation of Delgamukw. I don't think that's my interpretation of it. I'm worried that unless we start building small interim agreements and smaller steps, trying to do it all at once isn't going to work.

I think Bob Hall said the same thing this morning in a different kind of way. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Bob said, which was unusual. I don't know if he's here tonight. We agree more than we disagree. I think he said the same thing: get rid of some of the stuff that's really bogging us down, and let's start focusing on the stuff that we know we can achieve. I don't think the current model we have for treaty-making is going to do that. It doesn't allow us to do that.

J. Les (Chair): If I could ask a question, Clint. It's one I've been asking for a few days in terms of what our province will look like post-agreements, post-treaties. I would assume the collective desire is for an economically prosperous province. The potential for a higher degree of administrative complexity and the effect that might have on our economic competitiveness in a global sense is something that I wonder about sometimes. Are there any comments in that regard?

C. Hames: Only this: I think the systems exist for us to begin to integrate first nations governance structures into our existing structures. I look to the regional district structure. There are opportunities within that structure — the kind of local service area structure up to the electoral area structure — where I think first nations governance could fit fairly seamlessly into our existing governance structures without causing too much trouble. I do have a real concern about too many layers of governance and the whole consultation issue and all of that. The cost to competitiveness has to be considered when we look at the cost of doing business in British Columbia from our perspective and from the first nations perspective.

Well, thank you very much. You did say you'd be leaving behind some bedtime reading material.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. We'll do another one. I believe Joe Foy is going to be making the Western Canada Wilderness Committee presentation instead of Larry Commodore.

J. Foy: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Joe Foy, and I'm a director with Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Our organization was formed in 1980, and we are Canada's largest membership-based, federally registered, non-profit wilderness education organization. We believe that a healthy environment and enough protection of our natural environment are needed to sustain our economy and our future. We currently have over 26,000 members, with more than half of them living here in British Columbia, and we've always believed that environmental protection and social justice are closely linked.

Over the years we've worked closely with many first nations, respecting their rights and title over their traditional lands. In our experience, indigenous people understand the absolute necessity of protecting the ecological integrity of the land and waters that comprise their ancestral homelands. I'm reminded that we have evidence of a community, for instance, just beyond Yale and the Fraser River, that showed people living there continuously for 9,000 years, which I believe would predate the arrival of salmon and cedar on this part of the coast. Hence, we believe we cannot stay silent on the matter currently before your committee. I say that because there are those voices that argue that this committee should be boycotted.

We know that your committee's terms of reference only allow you to consider questions for a referendum on principles to guide the provincial approach to treaty negotiations and that you will not be considering whether or not to hold a referendum. However, for the record, please note that at our annual general meeting held on Saturday, October 13, 2001, our membership unanimously passed a resolution to oppose the B.C. Liberal government's initiative to hold a provincewide referendum on treaty negotiations. We further resolved to let our opposition to such a referendum be known at public hearings like this and to urge the government to abandon this costly, divisive and dangerous plan of action.

Regarding the matter of questions for a referendum, I would like to provide a little background information. Western Canada Wilderness Committee believes that first nations have an inalienable right to exist as a distinct people and have a right to access resources within their territories to allow their communities to survive and thrive. We have observed that while

treaty negotiations drag on, first nations have been prevented from adequately accessing resources on their own territories. This would include those first nations involved in treaty and those who are not.

The governments of British Columbia and Canada have allowed resources such as forests, fish and wildlife to be depleted by various resource extraction companies. We have observed that while treaty negotiations drag on, private company resource rights and tenures are being given out, sold, renewed and strengthened by the government of B.C. over first nations territories, consequently making it much more expensive and difficult to reach a just resolution of the land question. We have observed that while treaty negotiations drag on, so-called Crown lands have been privatized and sold off by the government of B.C., consequently making it much more expensive and difficult to reach a just resolution of the land question. We have observed that while treaty negotiations drag on, the government of B.C. has severely restricted the use of interim protection measures agreements. Such agreements, if implemented, would help to safeguard first nations resources and give first nations a say in proposed developments in their territories while the treaty process is underway.

Consequently, we recommend the following wording for a referendum question. Under the heading entitled "Referendum Question," we suggest you leave the space blank. That way, if the government of B.C. feels it simply must live up to its foolish promise of holding a referendum, it can do so without miring the whole treaty process in a more costly and divisive delay. Maybe then all sides can get back to the treaty tables and negotiate agreements promptly, including interim measures agreements that will allow all of the province's communities, including first nations communities, to survive and thrive in peaceful co-existence in this beautiful and bountiful land.

I would add one final comment. This is not the only jurisdiction on the planet that is trying to resolve a way for different cultures, different nations, to live together within a border. This is not about making us all one nation. This is about resolving that difficulty which many peoples find themselves in around the world. The problem as we see it, and what we've addressed our comments to, is this huge imbalance of power. While the corporations are continually allowed to strip first nations territories of their resources, there is no reason to resolve this. That power imbalance should be addressed.

Treaty may not be the way to solve this issue. It won't be the way to solve this issue if we continually let it drag on while resources are depleted. My fear as one who was born in this province and has ancestors that go back five generations — I'd like to think that my future grandchildren and the like can live here — is that if negotiation isn't the way to resolve this, what is? What will our future hold if this thing collapses due to delay? What will this hold for my kids and their kids? Thank you very much.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Joe. A couple of quick questions. At your AGM on Saturday, October 13, how many of your members attended?

B. Lekstrom: Would I be correct in saying — your first comment about half living here — that about 13,000 live in B.C.?

B. Lekstrom: The other one you touch on. When you talk about the territories, in your last paragraph on the second page, on first nations, you say "proposed developments in their territories." Could you just give me your view on what their proposed territories are? Right now all of British Columbia is under claim. I'm wondering if you're referring to all British Columbia as their territory. Could you clear that up?

J. Foy: One of the problems with the event you're holding today is that I see no first nations representation here. I would go to the first nations nearest to where I live to determine where those territories may lie. The exercise here, ladies and gentlemen, is to resolve — to negotiate — how we're going to live together in the future. I don't propose to dictate to any first nations where their territories lie. I would ask.

B. Lekstrom: I guess we can debate that. It has been asked. Certainly, the land claim issue is a significant concern, because a huge amount of the land mass of British Columbia — actually, more than a fifth — potentially falls under claim because of overlapping jurisdictions under traditional territory. That's why I asked that question.

It's fair to say that in my view, the last eight years haven't been effective in negotiating treaties. I think that's reflected in four of your paragraphs where you talk about negotiations dragging on and dragging on. I'm looking to you to see if you have any ideas on what could expedite that or correct it, because what we've done in the past isn't working. What we're going through with this panel is to try and enhance the ability. It isn't to stymie negotiations. It's trying to kick-start them and get them back on track.

J. Foy: You cannot, in my belief, have a fair negotiation with a gross imbalance of power. While tree farm licences are allowed to be laid over first nations territories, while more and more ski developments come landing on first nations territories, there is no reason

for those powerful interests in our society to come to any kind of settlement. If it is the treaty process that is going to work — I don't know if it is, but if it is — then there's the idea of interim measures agreements where, if you cannot resolve issues, then development is going to slow down. If you can resolve issues, then development is going to move ahead, and we enter into these negotiations somewhat more than equals.

We didn't know whether to come to this or not, and that's why we went to our members at that AGM. I'm just tired of going out into lands, into areas, which I know have billions of dollars of resources — and billions of dollars of resources removed from them — and seeing the people living in poverty. I know that with this kind of delay and delay, while anyone going out on the land can see how much is being depleted, they are going to reach — and have reached in some areas — intolerable frustration.

B. Lekstrom: Just one clarification. You pointed out that there was no first nations representation on this committee. This is a committee of the Legislative Assembly, and we work under the Legislative Assembly. You have to be an elected MLA; that's who this committee is chosen from. It's an all-party committee. Unfortunately, the other party chose not to participate — just for your information on that.

B. Lekstrom: Well, I respect democracy too much to comment on that. That's how we ended up here.

M. Folkman: Thank you very much and good afternoon, Mr. Les and members of the standing committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you for a few minutes this afternoon. My name is Mel Folkman, and I am here representing myself. Although I was employed by the Chilliwack school district for 36 years in my other life — I am retired; I retired five years ago — the views I wish to present this afternoon to you do not necessarily reflect those of the school district, although I would think in many ways they do. Rather, I need to state that they are my own personal views, and I'm happy to share those with you.

I want to begin by saying that I believe the task you have before you is an extremely important task, and at its conclusion it will have far-reaching implications for all British Columbians. I commend you for the consultative approach you have embarked upon, and I wish you all the very best in your deliberations during the course of your mandate.

My purpose this afternoon is to share with you my profound conviction of the importance of education as a key ingredient to the future of our province. In particular, I want to focus on the education of first nations students. I am pleased that the new government has recognized that education is a priority, and I commend you for that.

During my years in a leadership position with the Chilliwack school district we worked very hard to achieve a positive working relationship with our first nations community, the Stó:lō nation. Together we have made tremendous strides to improve the quality of education for our first nations students. We are now, for the first time, seeing the results of our efforts pay off, and through the close monitoring of these students, we see continued growth in basic skills development and an increase in graduation results. Education is viewed as a priority by Stó:lō nation and by the school district, and a variety of programs have been developed, in particular during the last ten to 15 years, to address the variety of needs of first nations students. These programs and services are making a difference for these children.

The current model of service delivery in Chilliwack, I believe, is quite unique to the province, and at the heart of the model is what we call the local education agreement, or LEA. This agreement sets out the working relationship between our first nations community and the school district, and it took a number of years to develop that model. It includes Stó:lō nation, independent bands and off-reserve families. It is viewed as an enabling agreement which empowers our first nations community to establish their own goals and priorities for education within the provincial guidelines, and it also specifies how these goals and priorities will be established. It is truly a collaborative model of decision-making that gets stronger each year.

The driver that assists with the implementation of the model is the Ministry of Education's targeted funding. These are additional dollars above the basic school district funding, and they are specifically targeted to develop programs and services that will improve the quality of education programs for first nations students. In Chilliwack the additional funding amounts to approximately $1.2 million annually. These funds are directed to the education community at the local level, which consists of equal representation of first nations staff and school district staff, and together they determine the priorities and how that money should be directed.

Programs developed by this funding tend to focus on a number of areas, cultural awareness programs, and we have a number of excellent programs within our community. These are cultural awareness programs not only for first nations students but, indeed, for all students who attend public schools. At the grade 4 level, for example, every student in the Chilliwack school district spends half a day at the longhouse at the

Language development is another program that the school district has been working on for a number of years. I believe that beginning next year, we will start the process of teaching the Halq'emeylem language to first nations students within the school system. Teacher assistants and tutors are also available to help those students who require additional assistance and to assist families.

Curriculum development is another strong area. I have some material here that has been developed by the Stó:lō nation curriculum committee, and it's excellent material. It is available for all students within the public school system. The additional funding, which we call targeted funding, has had an incredible impact in assisting first nations with their education.

For the roughly 1,400 first nations students in our school district, the model by all accounts is working and working well. For your information 1,400 students represent approximately 12½ percent of the total district enrolment in Chilliwack. About one-third of these students are on reserve.

I share this information with you for a couple of reasons. First of all, all too often we hear what is wrong with education. The program I have described is a huge success in Chilliwack. I believe we need to share the best practices throughout the province. We need to celebrate successes, and we need to highlight what is really right in education. Second, I believe the current Ministry of Education model is working and is making a difference in the lives of first nations students. The key elements of targeted funding and local education agreements have had, and are continuing to have, a huge and positive effect through partnerships with the school district, based on respect and a collaborative working relationship.

I encourage the provincial government to stay the course with this model. Indeed a number of the elements embedded in this model are also embedded in the charter schools model that is currently being explored by the Ministry of Education. In particular, the concept of empowering more decision-making responsibilities at the community school level is a powerful and, I think, very positive concept. The community charter that Mayor Hames mentioned earlier takes a look at defining and localizing not only education but also municipal decision-making. I think it's a time that is due.

Finally, I came here this afternoon to share with you my passion for education and my firm belief that education is our future. We will not achieve economic prosperity without a strong educational program as well as strong economic development strategies. I also wanted to share with you one community's approach to developing a delivery model that is making a difference for our first nations community.

I commend the government on its position on education. I thank you for your listening time this afternoon, and most sincerely, I wish you every best wish with the challenging and yet very important assignment you have before you.

V. Anderson: You've indicated the inclusion in the curriculum — and I commend you — of the aboriginal content as well as other educational content. Could you comment on how the inclusion of doing both of those together is creating the results that everybody had hoped they would create not only during school graduation but beyond?

M. Folkman: I think it achieves a number of things. Clearly, the curriculum that has been developed at the local level, in particular by the Coqualeetza Cultural Education Centre, works well within the ministry guidelines. It's incorporated within the ministry framework of curriculum development, concepts, skills and knowledge that should be taught to all students. I think it achieves a number of things. What I hear from staff at the school level is that first nations students feel really good about themselves, because they're seeing curriculum that's put in a very positive context. The other day a student mentioned that it's cool to be a first nations student. I think that says something about development of self-concept, that kind of thing. The other is that when we talk about cultural awareness, it's equally important for non-aboriginal students to be well aware of the cultural heritage of the community in particular and then as we branch out into world cultures, as well, and study at the senior level.

The curriculum is a very important component of the entire education — to take a look at helping first nations students feel more comfortable in school, feel good about themselves and have the target of really studying hard, achieving and graduating from school. It's working. I have some of the reports that have been developed by the Chilliwack school district. If you're interested, I'd be happy to leave those with you.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. Just a comment, and then I'll ask you a question. I think what you've brought forward is something which, in all the debate that goes on about treaties, we forget about — what makes up a community. You certainly appear to have a very good program in place here. How long has that program been in place?

M. Folkman: I'm glad you asked that question. Some of you probably thought: "What does what he's saying this afternoon really have to do with what we're all about?" I hope you might think about some of the elements. It's taken a long time.

The first thing we have to do as a school district is work hard to establish a trust relationship with our first nations community, and that takes time. You just can't simply develop a mandate that happens overnight; it takes time. It takes a long time to work that through. Then, to develop a model that is seen as, in

Chilliwack's case, providing equal responsibility for the school district as well as the first nations…. The committee works on a very democratic, totally collaborative approach. That takes time to work through. Ultimately, I believe it is the model, and we have to get to that point. Once you've reached those agreements, you can start progressing from that point. It takes time. There are no quick fixes to all of this.

G. Trumper: Has it been in place long enough that you can see what's happening at the graduation level?

M. Folkman: For the first time — and this has only been in the last two or three years, actually, since I retired — the school district took a look at trying to monitor and find benchmark positions. Are we making a difference or not? Are the programs that are in place really addressing the needs of these students? Is their achievement level increasing, and is the number of students increasing at the graduation level? For the first time the report last year indicates that the differences are starting to be noted. We still have a long way to go, but it's very positive in terms of the gains that have been made.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Mel, for your presentation. It's nice to see that your love for education continues on beyond your retirement.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Right. I also think it's nice to hear a positive submission which looks to contribute to the task that we have before us. My question to you, Mel, would be this: beyond the benefits associated with the information you have provided us with respect to your experience, have you given any thought to how we might address the whole question of education with respect to a question in a referendum dealing with questions of principle?

M. Folkman: I thought about that during the last few days. I thought: "For sure, that question's going to come up." That's a tough one. I don't think you can take the concept, if you will, of education and all that has been done, all that I have talked about here this afternoon, and frame that into a single question. It gets too complex. I don't know how you do that. I'm sure that every one of you is really going to wrestle with that as you try to frame the questions to make sure they are addressing what has to be addressed in as clear a way as possible. That's no small task. I do not envy you. The challenge you have is huge.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mel. I appreciate your help this afternoon. By the way, it occurred to me that with the Education committee of the Legislature holding hearings soon, they may well be interested in your submission as well. If you don't meet up with them somewhere, we should find a way to make sure that they receive your presentation.

G. Caffyn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I'm kind of speaking from the bottom of the pack here. I don't have much qualification for speaking except to say that I have kissed the blarney stone, and as you well know, sir, I have a propensity for dispensing bovine excrement.

Having got those trivialities out of the way, I'm absolutely fascinated by what I've been exposed to today. I came here to see what I could learn, and it's been nothing but learn. I was only going to stay here for a couple of hours, but as you see, I'm back.

My first contact with aboriginals in my life was when I first came to B.C. — my son is 40, so it must have been 40 years ago — and we were driving along the Dollarton Highway and they were having a potlatch there with their canoe races. This was something new. I'd never seen this before. All I'd heard of was the stereotype of — pardon the expression, ladies and gentlemen, but I'm afraid it's there — the drunk and destitute Indian. Here these canoes just absolutely floored me. You've got eight- or ten-man canoes and the most perfect teamwork I've ever seen. It sure was an eye-opener to me.

What was even more important was an old Indian gentleman sitting on the log in front of me, who I since came to meet on a number of other occasions and who probably was one of the most outstanding people I've ever met in my life as a philosopher. It was Chief Dan George. He was talking to a young Indian lawyer, and he was trying to put across to the lawyer the difference between our two systems.

I think that difference is pretty critical to what we're discussing today. Dan George indicated that when the tribal elders and the chief negotiated a treaty, the tribe was bound by that treaty. What was difficult to understand on our side of the coin was that when we change political parties, the goalposts frequently get moved. It seems to me that one of the things we have to do is get our side of the treaty process out of our political system so it is apolitical and we know where we're going. That seemed to be consistent with what people have said here today.

Education has been stressed right from the beginning with Bob Hall. I guess one of the things we want is not a great big philosophical diatribe but simple one-liners for no-brainers. Maybe that's how the public is going to get it.

Mr. Folkman's emphasis on involving an aboriginal segment in our education system…. I find it very hard that we don't include some of the absolutely super aboriginal fables, which are right up there with Aesop and Grimm when it comes to morality and all that. I speak particularly from my own experience. All my sailboats had Kwakiutl names. Sonoqua, the spirit of the wind, is quite a long story that I won't go into here, but it has a

good point. Following through with Mayor Hames's presentation, we have to get that type of presentation out to our service clubs and groups. As Mayor Hames says, they don't have the resources, but maybe we could develop a volunteer speakers bureau. The wheel has been invented there. The wheel was there; we've got to get somebody to push that wheel around our community to our service clubs. I think that could well be done.

To me, it seems there is a need for a certain movement on the aboriginal side to bring their societies forward to a point that's more compatible with the current world we live in. In that respect, I can't help wondering whether a separate aboriginal land registry office was established, where members of an aboriginal tribe can register their own property within the aboriginal context. I think there has to be a balance there.

The final point I'd like to make to you, ladies and gentlemen — and this really touches on the heart of what this committee is about — is that I don't see why we need a referendum. We've elected you people to do the job. However, you do need to get a real good grass-roots handle. I firmly believe that one of the things we need to develop in our political system is the use of focus groups that are randomly selected, somewhat similar to a jury, to look at some of these issues. What so often happens is that these issues are taken over by special interest groups with professional lobbyists, and that is often where the biases creep in. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the referendum, may I point to the embarrassment of a grass-roots election of a party leader at our federal level. I think it's very dangerous putting these issues down to the grass roots who don't necessarily understand all the full ramifications of it. Thank you, sir.

G. Trumper: Thank you very much. You made a very interesting point: you were only coming here for a couple of hours, and you've stayed all day. I think that's one of the things that this committee, in going round the province, and with the various people who have come to make presentations…. The comment has been relayed to me quite often by individuals that they've all learned something today which they hadn't known before, or they suddenly realized how uninformed they were.

Your comment on the presentation made by the mayor of Chilliwack certainly is to be commended, and I would hope that you who live in this region would encourage that to happen. It certainly brings forth the big problem: people don't understand what is involved, and it's been very difficult to get the attention of the individual person in British Columbia on what the treaties are all about. I also include the aboriginal community, because I know that one of the reasons one of the AIPs went down was that they themselves didn't feel informed as to what was going on. It's a very difficult issue to get the attention of people on this very important issue.

V. Anderson: Thank you very much. I'm delighted that you're part of the grass roots, because that's exactly what we have come out to hear: the grass roots. We hear the formal presentations on a regular basis. I have a feeling that the vast majority of people in our community are part of the grass roots. It's my experience that when I listen to people, they're much more knowledgable than we want to give them credit for. I'm leading up to my question there. We live, actually, in one of the best-educated, if not the best-educated, countries in the world. If we're not educated here in Canada or in B.C., I'm not sure what education does for us. We've had lots of formal education.

How would you suggest, as a grass-roots person, a wording that grass-roots people might have in a referendum to express and be able to respond to in a way they would understand?

G. Caffyn: I really have no idea of that at this particular point. Having sat through today and heard the range, it's very hard to pin down. I mean, some of the questions may be to deal with who should be involved in the process. Other questions could relate to what the issues involved in the process are. They're everything from chalk to cheese and soup to nuts.

V. Anderson: Perhaps, having listened, you may reflect and then let us have some questions when you've had time to reflect.

G. Caffyn: Well, as I say, my caution to you is to avoid it. I think John knows why.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you for coming this afternoon. We appreciate your participation.

D. Oliver: Hon. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for letting me speak today. In examining public statements by the B.C. Liberal caucus under the previous and seemingly endless NDP government and more recently as the current government, I've identified five issues that are consistently raised as a primary justification for a referendum on the provincial approach to treaty negotiations. Today I will speak to each of those issues, hopefully providing some additional information and perspective on each. Finally, I will examine the issue of possible questions and the implications for some of these. In this process I'll make some suggestions to the committee relating to the consequences of some of the actions and a preferable path forward.

The first issue that's consistently raised is a lack of progress. I've heard that here today. The B.C. Treaty Commission Annual Report, 2001 states: "Negotiations

have been in virtual suspension for much of the last 11 months." This is a result of the federal and provincial elections, the new B.C. government's settling-in period, reference to the courts on the issue of self-government — since abandoned — and finally, the provincial government's announcement that many important issues would be set aside pending the referendum. The BCTC provides a number of specific recommendations in their review that directly speak to ways of moving the process forward, and I found that it was a very frank document. They've admitted many of their shortfalls in the past and addressed those. I highly recommend it to the members of this committee.

At the recent open cabinet meeting on October 3, the Hon. Geoff Plant stated that there were three or four agreements-in-principle, or AIPs, in stage 4 of the negotiating process "in various states of disarray" and that no signed AIP was actually in place. From the research that I've done, this seems to be incorrect. The federal treaty negotiation office and the BCTC status updates show the Sechelt band in stage 5 negotiation of the final agreement and that the Sliammon band has initialled AIPs and is ready to move on to stage 5 once the referendum issue is laid to rest and the BCTC process restarted.

Forty-one additional tables are in stage 4, negotiating terms of comprehensive AIPs. Together with the completed Nisga'a treaty, greater than 70 percent of the first nations population in B.C. is represented by negotiations in stage 4 or beyond. This is not a simple process, as I'm sure you've all heard, nor one that should be rushed into, since all three parties in the process will live for the foreseeable future with the finished product. The Yukon has been negotiating agreements for 21 years. The Nisga'a treaty negotiations took 23 years, outside of the BCTC process.

A second issue that's consistently been raised is the lack of sufficient public input into the process. The BCTC process is "the most open and transparent" negotiating process anywhere in the world. "Main table meetings are open to the public and are sometimes broadcast on cable television. Local government and interest groups have input through advisory committees at local, regional and provincewide levels. News of developments in negotiations is carried in all major media." In addition: "The Treaty Commission recommends that the principals seek expert advice on ways to improve the consultation process now in place in treaty negotiations, including a set of standards that will clarify the rights and responsibilities inherent in a public consultation process." This is directly from the BCTC Review 2001. "Further, negotiation sessions, consultation meetings, open houses and forums are open to the public." This is from the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Services website.

The Federal Treaty Negotiation Office states that preparation for an offer made during negotiations with the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council was heavily influenced by more than 100 consultation meetings with regional stakeholders. Part of the mandate of the FTNO is to ensure that public information activities on treaty negotiations take place provincewide and that open main table negotiation sessions are advertised locally.

The Fraser Valley regional district's Fraser Valley Treaty Advisory Committee that we heard from just a little while ago has a mandate to represent the interests of local governments in the Fraser Valley in the treaty process. I heard a lot of frustration at some specific issues in their submission, but they're there as a public avenue. They state on their website that in addition to the public input processes built into the BCTC, there are the treaty negotiation advisory committees, the regional and local advisory committees and the regional caucus — as other ways that the public has input into the treaties in B.C.

The third issue is costs. The Hon. Geoff Plant stated at the open cabinet meeting that costs to date of the BCTC process are $230 million. It's my understanding that 85 percent of that cost has been borne by the federal government, leaving approximately $34.5 million over the eight years as a provincial contribution — or $4.3 million a year. When the referendum questions are chosen, there will be an immediate court challenge with an accompanying injunction against the referendum that will likely be pursued ultimately to the Supreme Court of Canada, resulting in further very large costs for legal fees and possibly damages. These costs — plus a projected $14 million for the referendum itself, plus others arising peripherally from further suspension of the treaty process, plus costs of possible conflicts with first nations over unresolved issues and/or a perceived breach of faith, plus the estimated $1 billion per year in economic costs of not settling land claims in B.C. — will be 100 percent borne by the people and the government of British Columbia.

The fourth issue is a desire for a firm mandate. The current provincial government received an unarguable mandate in the last election to represent the people of B.C. in all orders of business, including involvement in the BCTC treaty negotiation process. There is no need for a referendum. Public consultation through public meetings would provide a much richer resource of information and ideas that go far beyond the yes-or-no input offered by a referendum with the benefit of not constraining government's future actions, as referendum results will. Bear in mind that referenda in B.C. are binding on the government.

The fifth issue is a new-era commitment to fast-track treaty settlement. The key point here is that the consequences pointed out in issue 3 will sustain suspension of the BCTC process at least until the Supreme Court rules on the questions put forth. Meanwhile, some first nations may well be alienated from the process, and progress to date will be lost in those cases. This commitment, by itself, should point strongly to abandonment of the referendum.

Dealing with potential questions and potential problems, a broad question: should the B.C. government continue in the BCTC process? What happens if this question fails? Is that it for the mandate? Again, referenda in B.C. are binding on the government.

Another question, a little more specific: should the B.C. government seek agreement to negotiate

incremental agreements that build toward eventual comprehensive treaties where possible in order to provide immediate certainty on achievable issues? Good question. However, what if it fails? Referenda in B.C. are binding on the government.

Should the B.C. government engage in a series of public meetings to collect information and ideas relating to the provincial negotiating position and principles in the BCTC process? This is a good question. It could work. However, it doesn't serve to fast-track the treaty process, which is another new-era commitment, as it creates a new layer of process. As I pointed out in issue 2 above, the BCTC process already includes an obligation for public consultation and input, and maybe they haven't done it as well as they could. That can be changed; that can be worked on. Ratification of AIPs and final agreements also provide opportunities for public consultation.

As I prepared this submission, I came across the website for the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. They have posted a position statement on native issues, specifically land claims. This states: "The mining industry as a whole, simply put, just wants these contentious issues settled. Mineral explorers need access to the largest land base possible, and should they be successful, they need some reasonable assurance that development can proceed after that time and money has been invested." I think this is a fair representation of the views of the business community in B.C. Remember the estimate of $1 billion per year lost to the B.C. economy until such time as treaties are signed that give final certainty to all British Columbians.

I was struck by the levels of involvement in the BCTC process — from interested individuals to municipal and regional governments and interest groups to the provincial and federal governments. More than 70 percent of the native population of B.C. is either in negotiation or in implementation of treaties. I learned the federal government is shouldering a large portion of the costs of the process — as they should — understanding that an economic atmosphere of certainty and cooperation with first nations, as their communities begin investing in sustainable industries for their people and non-native industries finally proceeding with new and innovative projects, benefits not only B.C. but Canada as a whole. I do not understand the desire of the provincial government for a mandate on top of a mandate to proceed with treaty settlement, particularly in light of the new-era commitment to fast-track settlements and the potentially disastrous costs, delays and alienation of the parties associated with a Supreme Court challenge of the questions.

By all means, pursue incremental agreements. Continue to educate the public about the BCTC process and involve all parties in that process. Fulfil the promise to fast-track treaty settlement. Let the referendum die.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, David, for your presentation. A couple of questions, if I may. I'm just wondering, David, who you represent. Is it just yourself? What is your background?

A second question is: what evidence do you have that in fact there may be or is likely to be a Supreme Court challenge with respect to the referendum?

D. Oliver: In regard to the first question, I'm a teacher. I represent myself at this forum, although I'm absolutely certain that I am not alone in my views. I've run this by a number of people. I am involved in the community at a number of levels. Does that answer your question fairly well? Would you like some expansion on that?

D. Oliver: Okay, the second question. In my research over the last couple of weeks…. These are the primary documents, which I'll be glad to leave with the committee. There are a number of places where consideration is given to the ability to craft questions which do not suggest an infringement on article 35, constitutionally enshrined rights about aboriginal peoples, especially after Sparrow and Delgamuukw. The questions will be challenged as to whether or not they infringe on rights. As the first two examples I gave in my presentation, they're interesting questions. However, they both, I would say, would be found to infringe on existing recognized rights. There is considerable discussion about that issue in a number of documents including the Hansard of the 1993 Treaty Commission Act. It is beyond doubt to me that any referendum questions recommended by this committee, crafted by the government, will be challenged.

M. Hunter: David, in your research — with respect to that answer you gave to Mr. Nettleton — you are, I assume, aware that infringement of aboriginal rights is a legitimate activity of the Crown, provided certain tests are met as laid out in Sparrow.

M. Hunter: I just wanted to make sure you had seen that in your research as well.

J. Les (Chair): Just another observation, David. Before you jump to the conclusion that any questions which might be posed would necessarily be challenged legally…. I think you have to be careful of the assumptions you make as to the questions that will be crafted by this committee. For example, we will not be asking a question that says, "Do you think we should continue with the treaty process in British Columbia?" if I can paraphrase your first suggested question. I don't think we will be putting that question. We have said all along that we recognize the aboriginal rights as laid out in section 35 of the constitution. We have said that we are committed to the treaty-making process. What we're about here is how. That's what the question is: how do we proceed? It's not about rights.

Just a couple of factual issues in your paper. You mention that several first nations are in stage 5 or are about to be in stage 5. I'm not aware that any are at this point. The Sechelt AIP was rejected by the Sechelt first nation, so they are still in stage 4. The Sliammon are about to hold a referendum in their community to ratify the AIP that's been initialled. The Nuu-chah-nulth have rejected the treaty or at least the AIP, so there are no first nations in stage 5 of the treaty negotiations. You're correct. There are many in stage 4.

I believe that the document Looking Forward, Looking Back, recently issued by the B.C. Treaty Commission, also suggests that perhaps the first three stages were altogether too easy in terms of hurdles to overcome to get to the stage 4 process. The fact that a first nation or a treaty table is at stage 4 doesn't necessarily suggest amazing progress. I think we need to be careful in terms of bandying around those kinds of statistics, figures and evidence, because they may or may not be of interest or of any particular significance.

I just wanted to leave those thoughts with you. The other aspect — that each first nation reserves unto itself the right to conduct a referendum within its own community to consult with its people at the AIP stage. I would find it curious, to say the least, if a Supreme Court or any court, for that matter, were to deny any government the ability to consult with its people through whatever process it thought best.

D. Oliver: It's my understanding that the problem would not be with the process of consultation or referendum. The problem would be with the delay in the referendum caused by the challenges to the questions.

D. Oliver: One assumes that if someone is challenging the questions in the referendum, they would seek an injunction immediately to delay the referendum until such time as judgments could be made.

J. Les (Chair): I'm not sure that would happen, and I don't expect that will happen. I'm suggesting to you that it is a legitimate exercise for government to consult with the people using this kind of process, with the underlying premise that we are not talking about aboriginal rights as laid out in the constitution. Those are constitutionally protected. We know that. We're aware of that, and we're not about to infringe on that.

D. Clyne: I just came to listen today; I didn't really come to speak. But after sitting here for a while, I thought that maybe I would. I'm just talking as an ordinary citizen. I came to listen and decided to say something because I sensed that you people are really listening. I sensed that because of your questions to the speakers that spoke before me. It shows me that you probably have a really genuine concern about coming to grips with this problem that has been part of our history.

I certainly support what Clint and Mel said, having lived in B.C. all of my life — for 25 years in Chilliwack — and having taught for almost 30 years. There has to be a resolution to this historically long problem and to the inequities in it. Clint's comment is true: many citizens do not have the proper, in-depth knowledge of the historical background and of the current processes. Also, many people have not mixed with or worked with first nations people, which really makes me strongly wonder about the wisdom of a referendum question.

I have a few major concerns. When I worked in my master's program, I had to develop a questionnaire. It wasn't until I started developing the questionnaire and then piloting it to see if people were reading the same questions that I was writing that I began to realize how incredibly difficult it is to write something for many people to understand in approximately the same way. Things that I thought were absolutely crystal-clear were not to different people reading the questions. So that's a very difficult task.

What comes to mind is the Quebec sovereignty question. It, too, tried to deal with a very complex situation, and they developed a very long convoluted question. I think it was in the first referendum they had. I remember reading it many, many times. It was on TV a lot. I think we all read it. I can remember not understanding what it said. I'd get partway through the sentence and think I understood that; then I'd continue and I had lost the first part and couldn't understand the second. That in itself was a very complex situation, very similar to what we're facing here. I wasn't the only person either. It was a topic in the news media at the time too — that this was a very complex question, and how can people understand exactly what it means?

What reinforced this for me today was when Mel was asked a question about including education in the question, and he said that it's too complex. Education's just a tiny part of this whole issue. If that's too complex, then a question to do with a much broader issue is going to be even harder to deal with.

On top of this, my second point is: how can B.C. voters be able to properly understand a complex question when they have very little knowledge of the history and the background? Quebeckers certainly had much more knowledge of their historic background than probably most citizens of B.C. do of this issue, and they had a hard time understanding that question. How do we expect citizens of B.C., who don't have the background, as Clint mentioned…?

That was the other thing that reverberated with me. He said he felt for sure that communities, given the chance to develop the knowledge of the issues within a community…. It could be done that way. But there hasn't been the money provided for that to happen. So how do you do that in a short time? How do you "educate" B.C. citizens? — "educate" in quotation marks, because that's loaded too. Some people might say that's

not what you're trying to do. How do you do that in a short time? I don't know; I don't think it's possible.

I'm concerned that the question, if there is one presented, will eventually make things worse and result in divisiveness and may escalate already sensitive feelings. That's what's happened over the last eight years. I think it's been an education process. I think people do know a lot more about this issue than eight years ago, but people still don't really understand it. I don't understand it very well yet, and I've worked with first nations people, as well, and a lot of first nations kids. I think I'm reasonably well-informed, but I have to know an awful lot more.

I'm just concerned that the question will make things worse, not better. However, I guess I come back to my point that I really feel that you people are listening. I don't know. You'll have to, as you go round and listen to other people in other communities…. I just found this afternoon that some of the questions you asked were informative for me. I thought: maybe this is a way to go around and find out what people think about what goals citizens as a whole in British Columbia have for ourselves, for our first nations brothers and sisters. What are the goals? What are the processes we should use to establish the goals? There's a lot of local knowledge here.

I respect and understand what you're saying — that there are no first nations people on the panel because there are none elected. I understand that, but it is still a vacuum with that. There isn't anybody there.

Both Clint and Mel mentioned the importance of the local communities being involved in this. I think that's really true. Having been in the school system and looking back over the years, what Mel said is true. There have been some changes, some very positive changes, but it takes a long time. I think what Clint said about us making those little differences a bit at a time so that the honesty…. It will strengthen the relationships when people know they can trust. I think those are the things that will make the difference.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Dave, and thank you for your remarks about our listening ability. I'm going to give you my wife's phone number after this. [Laughter.] She'd be surprised to hear you say that. And she'll read about what I just said in Hansard.

M. Hunter: It's light at the end of a long day, because I think we're all getting a little weary. I think the point you made about the drafting of the questions and the reference to the Quebec referendum…. I can tell you that I am very conscious of that, and I think my colleagues are as well. We've had lots of people make the point in different ways that the way people interpret language is quite different from the way you or I might. We know we have to be careful.

I made the comment this morning — and a lot of people have made the point as well, David — that we don't know enough about the aboriginal world and vice versa, and therefore we shouldn't be asking questions. I think you answered that point in the comment you made that maybe we should be looking at what our goals are and the processes of reaching them. In my view, that's exactly what this process is about.

I'd ask you the question: do you feel more comfortable about asking people about what their goals are for this place we call home? I think that is what this referendum is about: the principles and what we want to achieve. At least, that's the way I look at it.

So your warnings to us and your suggestions that some of these things militate against the idea of a referendum…. Given that the referendum is going to go ahead, do you feel that asking questions about our values, our goals, is an appropriate way of finding out how we might get on with this process of reaching a culmination on treaties?

D. Clyne: First of all, I really don't know how this question will be written. I'm not talking about exact words or anything, but I'm talking about format. For instance, from what I'm hearing you say, it sounds like there will be a chance for you to respond to goals, to processes. So maybe there's going to be a series of questions. Would that be correct?

M. Hunter: I don't know any more than you do, because I'm not prepared to prejudice what I hear from you and others. We're going to be sitting down and spending a lot of time thinking about this. I'm just asking you what you think.

D. Clyne: Okay. If you're going to include a question on goals and processes and maybe a few other kinds of things, then it doesn't become a yes-no kind of question. If it doesn't become a yes-no kind of question, then it could be very valuable. My concern is the yes-no.

You know yourselves that even after the last election, there's still a big percentage of people who didn't vote Liberal. There's a bigger percentage who did vote Liberal — okay? But we know that in four years we get a chance to vote again on the job you do. On this kind of issue we're not going to get a chance to vote again. It's much more long-term. We're talking history; we're talking effects on our kids and their kids for many generations to pass. So that's probably a difference.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): David, thanks for your presentation. Sometimes some of the best presentations are ones that are made, as in your case, just as kind of an afterthought, but in any event, they're all helpful. I should also say that some presentations are very critical in terms of what we're doing and how people think we're doing it. I'm thinking of some of the comments that Mr. Oliver made. These in fact can be

very helpful to us in terms of critically assessing what we're doing and why we're doing it and thinking about some of the potential pitfalls.

As the Chair said, we're very much committed to the treaty process. You comment with respect to the educational component associated with what we're doing. It is our position that we are here to engage people at the community level as well as to inform them as much as possible. It's all part of what we're doing.

Like you, Dave, we are listening and learning as we go from community to community. In a few days we're going to have to sit down and sort out where we're going with respect to questions in and around the referendum. I know my colleagues share my optimism in terms of our ability, with the support that we've had at the community level, to get where we need to go. We embrace the challenges associated with what we're doing. There are huge challenges associated with the treaty process, but we expect to get there. So thanks very much.

R. Visser: If we come from the assumption — and we do — that we have to make treaties and answer the land question and you're saying we, the people in this province, don't have the skills to develop the principles or to ask or answer a question on what those principles should look like in advance, and if we can't understand that in advance of treaty-making and answering the land question, don't you think there is some merit in doing this now rather than waiting until we have treaties at stage 5 that we take to the public and that nobody understands at that point — and the expectations, certainly on the first nations part, are much, much higher because they consider that to be the deal? If the understanding isn't there now, it won't be there then unless we do something to raise the level of understanding.

D. Clyne: From my own knowledge of this, trying to understand this problem in line with your normal work life and your home life — life is pretty complex these days — I try to make a point of reading and finding out a bit about it. But it's pretty difficult to do that, and I probably have a bit more interest than most people. I think about what Clint said, in the sense that there really hasn't been, I guess partly, the money and the autonomy given to the local governments, the municipalities, to start to develop this process. If it's a yes-no question, then having people make a decision on that without the knowledge is dangerous. I agree with you that it'll take a long time to educate people properly. That's my concern. A yes-no question is a dangerous question because many people will vote on it not really understanding the question, firstly. Secondly, they don't understand the historical background.

R. Visser: Presumably at some point, when we come to treaty conclusion with various tribal councils, we will have to, as a government, take those to the people — not take them in a referendum sense, but we will have to be accountable to the people for them. Is it not better that the people of this province understand the principles in advance?

D. Clyne: It's very important that they understand the principles in advance. I would agree with that.

R. Visser: That's what we are trying to do: engage the people with a very important tool that everybody takes seriously — that is, their ability to exercise their right at the ballot box.

D. Clyne: The question is, though: how do you get them to understand the principles in a fairly short time? I don't know. If the question is going to be more like Mr. Hunter suggested — if it's going to be goals, processes and things like that — then that's a different kind of question. A yes-no question, like they had for Quebec, is very divisive. If people don't have the knowledge of it — I'd say that as citizens we probably have much less knowledge to answer a yes-no question than the people in Quebec did, because they were voting about themselves and here we're a large part of the community and voting about a community that we don't know that much about — that's my concern, if it's yes-no. Part of the problem is that none of us know what the question is, so it's hard.

R. Visser: You're certainly free to leave here with pen in hand and submit a great question to us all. You'd do us a great favour.

V. Anderson: Thank you, Dave. This is an important part too. I gather you are or have been a teacher.

V. Anderson: That may be helpful to us, because you're used to presenting a question to children in a way that, hopefully, is unambiguous. We need that help.

First of all, I think it's important to clarify that we are committed to doing treaties.

V. Anderson: Yes. This is not about whether there will be a treaty or not. That's very fundamental, and that needs to be clear.

V. Anderson: Yes, it has been. We're committed to doing treaties. It's the law of the land that we do treaties. We will be doing treaties.

The question that we have is: how can we do it better than it has been done so far? From the lessons that we have learned so far, how can we do it? As I under

stand the process, what we are asking is — hearing from the people who come to us from all walks of life: what are the principles that are fundamental in our living together, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, in our communities? If we can put out key principles that we've heard and if they should say yes to those principles, then we go ahead with them. If they say no to those principles, then we look for other ones that they would agree on. It doesn't mean that the treaty process would stop. It would mean that we need to be clearer on the principles that everyone supports and that are fair and just. If you like, we would have to test it. Once we have that affirmation of principles, then the process can go ahead very quickly.

D. Clyne: There are two things I think about. First of all, I think your first statement that you're going ahead with treaties is a bit of a misconception. Second, I think there is a misconception that we're going to get almost like a yes/no kind of question. That's not what you're saying.

V. Anderson: Do you agree on principles that are fundamental that we've been hearing? The other thing that has come across clearly is that this probably has to be written so it's clear to the grade 10 student.

V. Anderson: Okay. I want to test that with you. Then it would be helpful if you, as a teacher, could write us some grade 5 or 6 questions. I'm serious about that. To one of the previous speakers, the more education you have, the harder it is to write a grade 5 question. The more grass-roots you are — and my father was a grade 4…. The easier it was for him to have written this question.

D. Clyne: First of all, probably the way to do it would be…. A person like myself doesn't have the breadth of understanding to know how to write a question on this topic. Certainly, I'd recommend that once your question or questions or how you are going to do it has been drafted, it needs to be pilot-tested. That's critical. You could even employ universities in the sense of getting the proper vocabularies. Is this at a grade 5 or grade 6 level? I don't say that to put down people of grade 5 or 6. I'm saying that's a simple level that people understand, and there are fewer complexities in it where you can get different meanings and shades of it. Some of the best writing is the simplest and most straightforward writing, not the complex stuff. My feeling would be that what's really importantis that you have it checked and piloted after it's written.

If you're looking for goals that people are feeling and different things that you'd mentioned, if you're going ahead with the treaty process and it's being used to help you with that, then there could be some benefits to that.

V. Anderson: To confirm that, when I did a speedreading course at university we used the Bible because he said that was grade 5 language.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you for being here today, Dave, and taking an interest and speaking with us. I appreciate it very much.

J. Les (Chair): It's already taken down and will be on a website near you very soon.

J. Les (Chair): Here's what I propose to do at this point. I have no further speakers on the speakers list. I suggest that we recess for about half an hour until about 5 o'clock or so. There are several members of the committee who have an engagement in Vancouver that they need to leave for now. I will reconvene the meeting at approximately 5 o'clock if there are any speakers that wish to make a presentation. In any event, we will be finalizing no later than 6:30 this evening.

One introduction I failed to make all day long — a very important person in my life — is my constituency assistant, Pam White. Pam, stand up and let these people look at you.

We will recess and reconvene, as I said, at approximately 5 o'clock if there are any speakers that might wish to make a presentation then.

J. Les (Chair): If I could have everybody's attention just for a moment. It is now 5 o'clock. I'm not aware that anybody else has indicated that they wish to speak. Given that, I will now adjourn this hearing, and we will reconvene tomorrow in Vancouver. Thank you to all of those who attended today.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS