Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 14 - Thursday, October 25, 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; Dave Chutter, MLA; Rod Visser, MLA; Mike Hunter, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Val Anderson, MLA; Blair Lekstrom, MLA; Dennis MacKay, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 1:07 p.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:
    · Bruce Newton, Pinantan Pemberton Livestock Association
    · Jimmie Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, Canada West Ski Areas Association
    · Tony Brumell
    · Brian McNaughton, Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations
    · Merle Terlesky
    · Hank Karpuk, Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association
    · Tony Brumell
    · Chris Johnson
    · Roy McNutt
    · Chief Ron Ignace, Skeetchestn Indian Band
    · Dian Henderson

4. The Committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 6:31 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · Ted Joslin
    · Janice Dick-Billy, Neskonlith Indian Band
    · Richard Henderson
    · Al Knight
    · Alex McIntosh
    · Gary Babister
    · Carole Gillis
    · Duncan Barnett, British Columbia Cattlemen’s Association

6. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 8:09 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		433
	B. Newton	433
	J. Spencer	436
	T. Brumell	438
	B. McNaughton	438
	M. Terlesky	439
	H. Karpuk	440
	T. Brumell	442
	C. Johnson	443
	R. McNutt	444
	R. Ignace	445
	D. Henderson	450
	T. Joslin	451
	J. Dick-Billy	453
	R. Henderson	454
	A. Knight	454
	A. McIntosh	456
	G. Babister	457
	C. Gillis	458
	D. Barnett	459

	* 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:

Gary Babister
Duncan Barnett (B.C. Cattlemen's Association)
Tony Brumell
Janice Dick-Billy (Neskonlith First Nation, Skwelkwek'welt Protection Centre)
Carole Gillis
Dian Henderson
Richard Henderson
Chief Ron Ignace (Skeetchestn Indian band)
Chris Johnson
Ted Joslin
Hank Karpuk (Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association)
Al Knight
Alex McIntosh
Brian McNaughton (Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations)
Roy McNutt
Bruce Newton (Pinantan Pemberton Livestock Association)
Jimmie Spencer (President and CEO, Canada West Ski Areas Association)
Merle Terlesky

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is John Les. I'm the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and I represent the riding of Chilliwack-Sumas. Before the other committee members introduce themselves, I'll make a few brief remarks on what the committee's job is and what we're here to do this afternoon.

In late August this committee was established by the Legislature to make recommendations with respect to matters and issues concerning questions which the government should submit to voters to implement the government's commitment to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should govern B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum while ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title are respected.

Copies of our terms of reference and other information about the legislative process or the committee process are also available at the information table at the back of the room.

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

We've held a number of meetings around the province already, and we have a few more to conclude after today. So far it has been a very worthwhile process. The hearings are being recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff, who are over there to my right. Transcripts will be available on the website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt.

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

I will now ask the members of the committee and the Committee Clerk to introduce themselves, starting with Bill Belsey.

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

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

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

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

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

M. Hunter: Good afternoon. I'm Mike Hunter. I'm the MLA for Nanaimo, which is where I live.

D. Chutter: Good afternoon. Dave Chutter, MLA for Yale-Lillooet, living outside of Merritt.

J. Les (Chair): I would also point out that we have the pleasure this afternoon of having the presence of our local MLA for this area, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Claude Richmond, at the back of the room. Welcome, Claude.

J. Les (Chair): We have a speakers list this afternoon of quite a number of people who have asked to make presentations. I will of course follow that speakers list. The first presenters will be Bruce Newton and the Pinantan Pemberton Livestock Association.

B. Newton: Mr. Chairman, committee members, welcome to Kamloops. Thank you for this opportunity. You represent a step that is long overdue. However, you have a daunting task, even more so considering your November 30 deadline. This written submission that we've given you includes two attachments to which I will make reference during the presentation. Our submission might seem somewhat pragmatic or functional, and some observers may consider it simplistic. However, in our defence I must state that we make this submission based on six years of studying and being directly involved with land settlement issues. We feel we have a reasonable grasp of the complexity of the problem.

For the benefit of those here today who do not have the written version of our association, our membership involves large- and small-scale cattle ranchers, woodlot holders and livestock producers located in the Pinantan, Pemberton and Chase range areas. Our aboriginal affairs committee has focused on two strategies: first, to educate the members of our association regarding land claims issues; second, to gain assurances that our interests, rights and privileges as Canadian citizens — specifically rural British Columbians — are expressed, considered and actively represented in a direct fashion by at least one of the levels of government that we pay our taxes to.

Let me make it abundantly clear that our actions have not been directed at preventing our native neighbours from realizing their goals. I ask that you keep this fact in mind during my presentation.

In our submission we ask that you take into consideration four significant concepts or challenges to be given weighted consideration in any referendum that seeks to provide a mandate and determine the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations. The first of the four points challenges the failure of the treaty process to effectively and directly involve representatives from local communities in treaty discussions and decisions. Locally, our involvement has been relative to the additions to reserve and specific claims programs. We refer you to our briefing notes, attachment A, for more detail of the six years of presentations, contacts and proposals that we have made in an effort to gain a recognized position of some sort at the so-called table. The common thread that runs through the additions to reserve, specific claims, the Nisga'a treaty and the treaty process is the overwhelming prevalence of secrecy and exclusion. The full spectrum of stakeholders are not allowed in. The result is suspicion, fear and doubt that fester in the community, driving a wedge between native and non-native citizens. Let me put it to you another way. Long after the negotiators go home to their apartments in Hull or Victoria, the native and non-native community left in the aftermath are challenged with the task of making something work that they've had little or no part in.

Why is it so important to have rural British Columbians involved in some aspect of the decision-making relative to land settlements? In your previous sessions the subject of the cost of settlements has been discussed and the land quotient referenced as an obvious part of the final settlement. To most negotiators and the general population, the land is lumped in as part of the cost. All Canadians will have to pay a price to settle claims, but the rural British Columbians will be forced to pay a much higher, much more personal price. It is the rural communities who will have to make significant changes to their lifestyles when this occurs.

With no disrespect to the committee but rather directed to the negotiators and the treaty groupies, please spare us the line: "Private property is not on the table." Private property, land holdings, permits and leases are on the table — as is freedom of movement, landlord-tenant relations, municipal or regional taxation, compatibility of land use, the ALR and representation. All of these are on the table directly or indirectly.

Let's us not be naïve or schmoozed by the government spin doctors who would lull us into thinking these are not on the table. These land- and treaty-related issues will impact families, businesses, the daily lives, the equality and the traditions of native and non-native rural British Columbians. Therefore, shouldn't rural British Columbians have a recognized role in the process? For example, shouldn't directly impacted stakeholders have a say in establishing a formula of compensation in the event of them having to possibly abandon or downsize the family farm, so to speak? Shouldn't these people have an active role and input into determining boundaries, water and land use issues? Who best to be involved than those who know the local terrain? The very people, native and non-native, who live and work in the very community being addressed by a claim.

By giving local stakeholders a say in the process, the probability of success of a settlement will be increased since the stakeholders will have developed a sense of ownership in some of the decisions and the structure of the settlement.

Mr. Visser, at the committee's meeting in Smithers you caught the drift of this point in your questioning of Mr. Henderson from the back-country tourism group. As quoted in the draft transcripts, you said: "Essentially you're saying that the solutions to the treaty issues or the land questions are local by nature." You then added: "As a local person you're far more eminently capable of solving a lot of these issues."

The treaty process must directly involve both native and non-native stakeholders who are destined to live with the settlement decisions. Attachment B of our submission to you provides a concept of how such a process might work on a specific community basis. By the way, that attachment was focused on the specific claims process. As an aside, this proposal has been shown to bureaucrats, MPs, MLAs, Senators and natives. We have received strong encouragement from our native neighbours to pursue it.

Based on the foregoing, the following might be considered as a question for the referendum: to increase the probability of success, do you agree that at some point in the settlement process local-based community advocacy and input should be allowed?

The exclusion of rural British Columbians in the native land issues is mirrored by the exclusion of a number of native individuals and groups, which brings me to our second challenge to the process. We draw to your attention the degree to which the current treaty process fails to encompass and address the full spectrum of native stakeholders in B.C. Both the federal and provincial governments are not fulfilling their responsibilities unless they endeavour to include all natives in the treaty process. Native women, Métis, urban natives and almost one-third of native bands in this province are not specifically addressed by the treaty process. As is the case with rural British Columbians, there seems to be a disregard for the rights and equality in the way the treaty process views the native community. Perhaps this is a constitutional issue, or perhaps there is a need to revisit the question of extinguishment.

It is our view that so long as the so-called treaty process excludes some individuals, identifiable groups and bands of natives, how can you achieve your stated objective of negotiating workable, fair and affordable treaties with first nations that will benefit all British Columbians? How do you expect those communities and groups and individuals left out to ever be part of a better British Columbia and Canada? On this topic, a referendum question might be phrased such as: should there be the assurance that the treaty process fully addresses the intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as a result be altered or modified to encourage and encompass the participation of all natives in British Columbia?

The two concepts or challenges to the current process that I've just described are immediate and local in nature. The issue relates directly to the people, both native and non-native, who are faced with a land settlement issue. Points 3 and 4 are more macro in their scope.

Continuing, our third concern is the threat the treaty process poses to Canada's sovereignty. We're asking the government to be sensitive to and consider seriously the terminology used in the treaty process, even the term "treaty" itself. We draw to your attention the UN International Covenant on the Rights of Indigenous Nations, part VIII, paragraph 34. In that document you will learn that a treaty signed between a state and its indigenous nation is subject to international bodies for dispute resolution. The inference here is that Canada's sovereignty is subject to challenge in an international court as a result of signing a treaty with our first nations.

Do our negotiators fully comprehend the definitions impact of the lexicon of terms contained in the treaty negotiations? What do these terms mean in the international arena? We need some safeguards in the settlement process that ensure the issues remain inside our country. A question might be: do you agree that any settlement or agreement signed in Canada contain a non-negotiable clause that recognizes Canada as the supreme authority and that the settlement acknowledges that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms supersedes any conditions or agreement imposed by the settlement and, finally, that each signatory acknowledges he or she is a Canadian citizen?

Our final challenge is based on the observation that the cost and related lack of productivity of the current treaty process is abysmal. Isn't it time we introduced some quantitative measures to the overall framework of the treaty process? We need certainty. Both natives and non-natives need to get on with building a better British Columbia and Canada for our children.

Therefore, why not consider a time limit by which all claims must be submitted — for example, January 1, 2001? Mr. MacKay touched on this point, I believe, in the Smithers meeting when he questioned Mary Dalen about placing an end time on the treaty process. In conjunction with this time limit, why not place a requirement that any overlap issues must be settled by the conflicting native bands prior to entering into stage 1 of the treaty process? It is my understanding that this was originally a requirement, but not now.

Second, why not endeavour to place a maximum dollar figure — including cash, land value, resource value and ongoing support and maintenance costs — that the joint senior levels of government will commit to in solving claims? With all the computer modelling available, surely our two senior levels of government can come up with a total value that they will budget for claims. I just can't resist this. I have no doubt that this has been done, but no politician in their right mind wants to tell the public. We feel the recommendation introduces at least a beginning to the end. A question to include in the referendum might be as follows: do you support placing time limits and financial ceilings on the land claims submissions and settlements?

Mr. Chairman and committee members, this concludes our submission to you. We've attempted to respect your time limitations, but you can appreciate the frustration of having to select one or two points from what has become an encyclopedia of issues and concerns. We are open for any questions. I thank you very much for your interest and attention.

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

G. Trumper: Thank you, Mr. Newton, for your presentation. Can you just tell me, in the large area that your group obviously represents, how many bands are in the treaty process and if there are any that are outside it?

B. Newton: To the best of my knowledge, there are no bands in this area in the treaty process. The Kamloops and Neskonlith bands have a specific claim. Each of those claims has received a preliminary no. The Kamloops claim has been in since 1988. I realize that's the federal government. I think it's unacceptable that it's taken all this time and they've just received a preliminary no. We have a copy of that claim. It's over 2,000 pages. The Neskonlith band received a no. The Adams Lake band is also part of our range area. The Neskonlith and Kamloops Indian bands are the ones that are in our range area.

J. Les (Chair): You make reference on page 4 of your submission regarding a potential need to revisit the question of the extinguishment. Could you elaborate a little bit on that issue?

B. Newton: It's my understanding that one of the reasons that some of the bands are not participating in the treaty process is because of extinguishment. If you take a look at the Nisga'a treaty, there is some question of whether extinguishment exists or not. On the one hand, the treaty says that it supports and acknowledges the constitution of Canada, but it also states that the traditions of the Nisga'a people supersede. I raise the point that maybe there has to be a way of bridging between extinguishment…. I guess the Canadian governments have said that some form of extinguishment will be asked for in the treaty. As I say, particularly the local bands, I believe that's one of the reasons they're not in the treaty process.

J. Les (Chair): Some, though, that we've heard from over the last several weeks feel that the concept provides a degree of finality. Have you any thoughts in terms of the finality of the process?

B. Newton: I believe you will get people who seem to be afraid of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35. I think Gordon Gibson referenced Citizens Plus to you folks. My feeling is: why can't we work

with section 35 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and why should we be afraid of it? The only concern I have with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that in the process of trying to respond to section 35, which addresses title and rights, you take my rights away in the process. If we can find a way that you don't affect that — and I think that's what Citizens Plus was trying to address — then why do we have to extinguish something that's in the Charter? I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a constitutional person, but I question that. If you're going to have extinguishment in a treaty, isn't that counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? So I have concern with that.

Furthermore, some of my native friends are concerned that if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is kept out of the treaty, then they lose some of their rights. I'm talking about some of the native women.

M. Hunter: Bruce, you've got some fairly interesting and heavy critiques of the process. I just ask you a brief comment on what you think might be done. Is the fix with the Treaty Commission? Is the fix for local communities, both government and non-government, to sit at the table? Is it for local communities, government and non-government to be part of British Columbia and Canadian delegations at the table? Have you got any thoughts on that? I get the point that you've made, but how would you fix it?

B. Newton: I tried to be careful in our wording. I didn't want people to think that I was saying that the local representatives, Kamloops people — Kamloops natives, Kamloops ranchers and so forth — should be involved in the entire negotiations. I think there are certain skills and knowledge, and so forth, that they couldn't participate in. But at some points in the process, it's clear that the government is mapping out lands and areas to be part of a settlement. Although some people may not want land as a settlement and may want cash as the only settlement, I think the reality is that land will be part of the settlement.

When you get to those subjects, and they may be at various points in the negotiation or in the development up to the agreement-in-principle anyhow, local people — and I mean seeking out subject matter specialists, people who really understand the water systems and the water flow — could be involved. For instance, we had a bureaucrat from Hull visit us, and we took him around. He had no concept about ranches. He thought ranches were maybe like on Little House on the Prairie with a nice fence around them. He had no understanding that ranches are not contiguous, nor are woodlots.

M. Hunter: So you would see local expertise in different subject areas being used by Canada and British Columbia in the formation of negotiating positions, details on different chapters of the treaty.

Thank you very much, Bruce, for your submission. It was very interesting and thought provoking. Thank you for coming.

The next presentation is by the Canada West Ski Areas Association. I'm hoping it's not all downhill from here. [Laughter.]

J. Spencer: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to talk to you. I'm the CEO of Canada West Ski Areas Association. Co-located with us is the B.C. Helicopter and Snowcat Operators Association. Between these two elements we cover the four western provinces, but in today's submission, obviously, we're just discussing the question of British Columbia.

In that province we have some 60 alpine and Nordic areas and some 31 heli and snowcat operations. We employ around 20,000, and we have in excess of $4 billion in the ground. Our last year's visits to British Columbia was $5.5 million in the way of skiers and snowboarders. The heli guys attracted some 87,300-odd people to their sport. We have shown an annual gain throughout the last 19 years. The majority of the resorts and the snowcat operations are on Crown land with legal tenures. The area operators function under the B.C. alpine commercial ski policy. The heli operators function under the CR policy — commercial recreational policy. We are certainly the leading province in Canada as far as destination resorts, investment, facilities and foreign investment. We are now considered leaders in the international community.

I'd like to just briefly touch on the commercial alpine ski policy. I'm not sure how conversant you are with it, but it is a vitally important document for the functioning of the industry. It was put together between the provincial government and Canada West Ski Areas. It took six years to complete and then eventually was introduced in 1982. It has been, without any question, the success story for the ski industry in Canada. It is much envied by the other provinces and by the United States, because it's a document that brings together industry and government, and it functions in a very cohesive way.

The structure of it is allocation of 50-year tenures, which are renewable at the 40-year point. The base lands may be purchased at fee simple and assessed at raw land values. We go through a very stringent process of approvals, the first being the master development plan, which is very carefully laid out and mapped. We have to show that the financial plans are financially viable to the term of your master plan. The environment plan plays a huge part. We consider ourselves really good environmentalists. We are very proud of what we do within the areas. Of course, we must prove our management ability, so our management plan has to be fully placed forward and approved. Throughout all that, we go through the full public hearing process.

The recreational lands — the lands upon which we ski — are leased. We pay revenues to the government of 2 percent of all our lift revenue, which is quite a considerable sum of money. The whole master development

agreement is conducted by BCAL. This document has allowed us to be highly successful in attracting foreign investment. However, in the last couple of years or so this is now in jeopardy, mainly because of the uncertainty of land claims and certain protest action that has taken place.

The document itself. Twenty years ago the majority of ski areas in British Columbia were small day areas. Now a high proportion of them are resorts with full-blown villages on the mountain, which allows people to come, park their cars and enjoy their vacation of seven or ten days, or whatever it may be, without having to drive. We draw Canada-wide, from the United States, Mexico, South America, recently more so the United Kingdom, Europe, and very recently Australia and New Zealand, Korea and Japan. The international travel is quite considerable, and B.C. has in fact been the main recipient of those foreign visitors.

Perhaps more importantly, the document itself has provided the foundation for very close cooperation between government and industry. The ski industry is without doubt the largest user of Crown land for recreational purposes. The CR policy which governs the use of heli and snowcat operations is very much mirrored on the alpine policy. There are one or two slight differences, but in the main they're very similar.

I'd like to suggest some key principles as far as the negotiations of treaties. We believe that the upholding of existing land tenures is critical. Land tenures granted by the province of B.C. range from fee simple to licence of occupation and use permits. They are the basis of our economic and social systems of operating. Fee simple and tenure land, we've always been given to understand under the document, are not on the table for negotiation of title purposes. The integrity of the system must be maintained and the message delivered to the people of B.C. and worldwide.

The question of finalization of decisions. I think the people of B.C. cannot be asked to sustain the costs associated with ongoing uncertainty if treaties are not final agreements. Nor can the province continue to go through the endless process of renegotiation of claims. The process must be established now to resolve these issues permanently.

The question of affordable solutions. We cannot revise history to eliminate the last 150 years of frustration. For this process to reach a successful resolution, we must focus on understanding what is fair and affordable today and in the future. All negotiations should use this as a central objective. To be successful, treaty negotiations must be separated from the day-to-day business of the province and consultation guidelines be in place to protect the rights of any resident of B.C. who is potentially impacted by the land tenure decisions. Only when the treaty agreement has been signed off for a region should changes in that area be phased in.

Time limits. It is in everyone's best interests to complete the treaty process in a timely manner. In the last ten years hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, and virtually nothing — perhaps a strong way of saying it — has been accomplished. We therefore strongly recommend that time limits for resolution be established for this process. All parties would welcome the certainty of knowing that the treaty process will not be bogged down, or appropriate consequences will apply.

We strongly recommend that an appropriate time frame of, say, 20 years be legislated for the process to conclude. Funding and resources should be allocated within this period only, and in the absence of treaties in place at the end of the time frame, an imposed solution would be applied based on the body of the treaties negotiated to that point. This issue must not be passed on to our children. If settlement time frames are not imposed, it could be to the detriment of everyone.

Participation in the treaty process. We feel bound to say that bands not in the treaty process must be persuaded to participate in the process itself. That is the only sensible solution to ever get to some form of agreement.

Finally, on legal equality. We must ensure that all laws are equally applied and enforced for all British Columbians, consistent with the rights guaranteed to all Canadians under the constitution. Illegal activities such as roadblocks, threats and intimidation or violent demonstrations are unacceptable. The laws of the province must be enforced, regardless of whether illegal activities are caused by special interest groups or not. We must ensure that all British Columbians enjoy equitable government regardless of race, religion, creed or ethnic origin.

That concludes the presentation. There is an executive summary on the front, which you can read at your leisure.

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

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. I think I'm safe in saying that we haven't heard, during the course of our travels, from anyone involved in an organization of your type. So it's good to hear from you.

One question that comes to mind — and I don't see any reference to it in your presentation — is the whole notion of partnerships with first nations with respect to commercial enterprises. Is that something that your organization has entertained in the past?

J. Spencer: Yes, very much so. We have many joint business ventures between ski areas and local first nation bands, and we do encourage it. It's perhaps an omission on my part, and I'm sorry for that. But yes, they are in existence, and we do think it's very important. Where they have in fact been created, they have been very successful.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Jimmie, for your presentation. You've made it clear in one of your points here — affordable solutions — that to be successful, treaty negotiations must be separated from day-to-day business

in the province. Our previous speaker told us how important it is to have local involvement in these treaty negotiations.

J. Spencer: No, the thrust of that remark is that throughout the year we're continually doing business with BCAL, whether it be new plans or new developments or whatever. All I'm saying is that whilst negotiations are going on for treaty matters, it should not hold up the normal course of business that is in fact a day-to-day affair.

R. Visser: You represent ski operations from all over the province. Are you involved at any level of the negotiations on regional advisory committees?

J. Spencer: The ability to do that is from the local areas, the local ski area operators. My function is to look after the industry as a whole. This is only a small part of it. Most of my life is looking at safety measures and safety operations and how to function as an industry and how to bring more people to British Columbia.

M. Hunter: Jimmie, just a quick question to follow on from Mr. Nettleton's question. Your association has member companies that are involved in joint ventures with aboriginals. That's what I understood you to say.

M. Hunter: So those companies are supportive of all the points that you made in your brief to us?

A Voice: May I just ask one question to the members of the panel? It's a question that concerns me.

J. Les (Chair): It is a public meeting, and therefore we need to record everything that is being said. We need your name as well, sir.

T. Brumell: My name is Tony Brumell, and I'm a resident of Kamloops. I just want to ask a question. I may at some point later this afternoon actually do a presentation. I'm not registered as such yet. I am concerned as to why you're sitting in front of an American flag. They do not have any say in these particular things. I am distressed that they're apparently given equal representation and weight or status with the British Columbia province. I would like that flag removed from this and all future negotiations on this issue.

T. Brumell: It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter that this is a Canadian issue in British Columbia, and an American flag has no place there.

J. Les (Chair): Right. Well, these are furnishings, I presume, that are being provided by the hotel. I take no personal, or on behalf of the committee, responsibility whatsoever for the furnishings of the hotel. I take your point; I will see if it can be dealt with.

I'd now like to move on to the next presenter. The next presentation is being made by Brian McNaughton on behalf of the Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations.

B. McNaughton: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. My name is Brian McNaughton. I'm the general manager with the Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations, and I'm here on behalf of our president, Chris Cunningham. In front of you, you should have a folder, which has been distributed and contains all of the information that I will present today. On the left-hand side there is a series of pages that I'm just going to guide my presentation from, if you'd like to follow along.

The Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations has 28 member associations located throughout B.C. Elsewhere in your folder you'll see the list of association names, if you're interested. There are also some brochures describing the activities of a number of those associations, also contained in your folder. Within B.C. there are 812 woodlot licence holders, and we represent numerous private woodland owners as well. I won't go through our federation mission statement or goals and objectives in detail; they are also contained in that corporate folder.

Just briefly, I'd like to describe what a woodlot licence is. It's a small area-based forest tenure which

combines private land with Crown land. In the interior they can be up to 600 hectares of Crown land; on the coast, 400 hectares. Eighteen percent of the land in woodlot licences is privately held. That's over 92,000 hectares, out of over 500,000 that are contained in woodlot licences. In other words, the average woodlot licence contains about 115 hectares of private land.

These are also small businesses. They support over 1,000 families either in whole or in part. I think it's also important to acknowledge that this marriage of Crown and private land makes no difference in terms of management. It's the same high standard that's applied to both. Also being that it's small-scale management, much of the work is done personally; it's within a family unit. In many cases, these are generational tenures. They are handed down from family member to family member, through generation to generation. Because of the personal, small-scale nature, many are located in sensitive areas — near communities where there are high values. That's because they have clauses and provisions that maintain full-force cover, basically for rotation of trees and continuous management. They are very light — if you want a light level of management on the land base.

Woodlot licences are awarded through a competitive process to the most suitable applicant. There are generally three criteria that are applied in the evaluation. The first is the candidate's experience and education. The second is their management intent for the area. The third is their private land contribution, and that's in terms of quantity of land as well as the quality of it and the quality of the forest crop that's on it. The person has to be a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident 19 years of age, a native band or a Canadian-controlled corporation. Over 40 woodlot licences in this province are held by first nations bands.

A few facts about woodlots. In the 2000-01 fiscal year approximately 1.5 percent of the province's timber harvest — about 1.25 million cubic metres — came from woodlots. That resulted in $15.2 million in stumpage paid to the Crown. In the previous fiscal year it was slightly over $20 million, so over the last two years it's about $17.5 million on average.

Very interestingly, the return on investment to the province is about 337 percent. The government puts about $4.5 million into the program, against the $15.2 million that it received this year. That's just strictly against stumpage. That doesn't include things like logging tax, PST and other forms of taxes. Our estimate is that it generates about $125 million annually in economic activity.

The reason I'm here is simply to stress that the new-era promise made on behalf of the Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations says: "to fully protect private property rights and resource tenure rights in treaty negotiations." The federation's submission to you is simply that the B.C. government has got it right.

The principle of upholding the rights of private property owners and resource tenure holders throughout the treaty process is correct. From the federation's point of view, this is particularly important for woodlot licensees, since the tenure includes both private and Crown land, as I've just described.

M. Hunter: I'd like to ask you a question along the same lines I asked the previous presenter, because you make the point that over 40 woodlot licences are held by aboriginal bands. Are they in agreement with the presentation you've given to us?

B. McNaughton: We have gone through the collective process through our federation. All we're saying is that our rights should be protected the same as anybody else's. If they choose to put their woodlots on the table for their negotiations, that's certainly an individual choice, and we support that 100 percent.

G. Trumper: Are there any joint woodlot licences with non-natives and some bands? Are you aware of any?

B. McNaughton: Not off the top of my head, I couldn't say so. I would expect that there are maybe two individuals that are holding a woodlot licence, and one may be native and one non-native. I couldn't say for sure.

R. Visser: Is your association active on the TACs and the RACs, the regional advisory committees?

B. McNaughton: We have members that sit on various RACS throughout the province, yes.

B. McNaughton: Not necessarily association by association. Some represent an association; others are just representing their individual interests.

M. Terlesky: Just before I start my brief, I'd like to circulate a couple of pictures that I took from the Oka conflict in 1990 in Ontario. There are five pictures there. I'll make reference to them during my brief. I'd like them back, if you don't mind. Are we ready to go?

M. Terlesky: Members of the committee, my name is Merle Terlesky, and I was raised in this wonderful city. At the appeal from Mr. Krueger to residents of Kamloops, he asked that people come out and participate in this process, and that is why I am here.

I want to give you a more personal look at this conflict facing B.C. residents. I ask you not to kid yourselves, my friends. We are at the tip of a very old eruption of a terrible situation in British Columbia. I want to begin by giving my full support to Mr. Krueger and his recent comments regarding financial sanctions of the Neskonlith band.

I believe that the native youth movement is waging economic and political terrorism on the residents of Sun Peaks and its owners at Sun Peaks Corp. I speak not only from what I have seen reported but from my own personal experience at Sun Peaks and watching the native youth movement in action.

In October of this year I went to Sun Peaks and talked with some frustrated residents up there. There are quite a few. One man I spoke to and his daughter were literally harassed at McGillivray Lake when trying to walk their dog and were threatened. My colleagues and I ventured to the entrance of McGillivray Lake and were stopped by native youth members. We were treated very rudely and told in no uncertain terms that we were not to pass. Rather than having the situation escalate to violence, which I'm sure it could have, we left.

I am thoroughly disgusted by the antics of a small militant group of activists who have no concern for the law and respect for others. Many of them have already stood in front of the courts of the province in our city and have been charged with breach of court orders. Needless to say, not one of them has spent a day in jail. If they continue to disrupt the day-to-day operations of Sun Peaks or other places, may I suggest that our federal government's new anti-terrorism bill could come into play and have them charged under federal statutes. I suggest you look at the proposed bill under section (e), the definition of terrorist activities. They fit the bill.

This young man at the entrance to McGillivray Lake had the audacity to try to tell me he was like Martin Luther King Jr. Members of the committee, the native youth movement do not follow in the path of peaceful, non-violent civil disobedience — on the contrary. Even their own people across B.C. have distanced themselves, including our well-respected Kamloops Indian band Chief, Bonnie Leonard. Their call for B.C. action got a total of nine people out across the province.

The natives of British Columbia must decide to answer the question that our MP, Betty Hinton, asked at an all-candidates forum during this last election: so you want equal rights or special rights? I stand for the abolishment of the Department of Indian Affairs. Quite frankly, I am tired of the granting of special rights. Either you are Canadian or you are not. If you decide not to be, you cease to receive the benefits of citizenship of this country — no more status cards, no more cheap gas and no more financial handouts.

Members of the committee, there are a few pictures I am circulating to you from the Oka crisis in 1990 in Ontario — I took them myself — where Mohawk native militants, some from the United States, faced off with police and army, and one police officer died of gunshot wounds. Unless the B.C. government institutes a final settlement to the land claims question, I assure you we are next.

We cannot allow threats of roadblocks, rail disruption, etc., to stop the drive for a just settlement. In the United States they face lots of threats. They're looking at anthrax right now, but they will not allow those day-to-day threats to stop the activities of business and commerce. Nor can we. Chiefs in British Columbia have made threats of roadblocks and rails. I say: bring in the army if necessary.

This government must be bold, as our MLA Kevin Krueger has already shown, and be determined to see this through. Treaty negotiations cannot go on for eternity at the expense of taxpayers.

You know, all that land that the North Hills Shopping Centre sits on, which used to be the Skyway Drive-In, was owned by my grandfather. He had to sell it dirt cheap, very unfairly. I wonder what would happen if I set up a roadblock with guns and said: "I want my land back." I tell you, I'd be in jail pretty quickly.

There must be a final and just end to all of this. Many have tried, all the way back to Trudeau, but few have succeeded. This government, I believe, on this issue has the support of the overwhelming majority of B.C. residents for a final settlement. Don't let fear and intimidation or popularity polls stand in your way. Bring to B.C. a referendum that is final and just for all sides.

Is Hank Karpuk here on behalf of the Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association?

H. Karpuk: Thank you. I'm here on behalf of the Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association. We are a 400-member club of anglers, hunters and outdoors people with a great deal of experience in fish, wildlife and habitat issues in B.C.'s southern interior.

We are extremely alarmed at the illogical, poorly researched and random manner with which treaty negotiations have proceeded on the west coast. We have reluctantly come to believe that those politicians and bureaucrats charged with the responsibility of representing

the interests of B.C. and of Canada in treaty negotiations have an unbelievably poor understanding of natural resource issues and management. This has been demonstrated time and again by the piecemeal, unprofessional way in which the treaty process has unfolded. We have no quarrel with the concept of negotiating fair and equitable treaties — equitable for all Canadians. Our quarrel is not with the aboriginal people. We seriously take issue with the lack of leadership and the failure of the government of Canada to adequately serve the interests of all Canadians.

The present system indeed appears to more than adequately represent the 3.7 percent of British Columbians who are native, while most certainly ignoring and misrepresenting the 96.3 percent of the population who are non-native. We fear that the present process will result in inequities of giant proportions, extreme resentment and possibly even hatred in the short term while encouraging and causing unrest and worse in the long run.

We have some questions. Question 1: does the existing treaty process give third parties — that being the public — an opportunity to participate in treaty negotiations in a meaningful way? As we see it, no. The public representatives are merely given a brief update at the eleventh hour. Such an after-the-fact exercise is nothing more than an insult to our intelligence and makes a complete mockery of the public involvement. This has to change.

Question 2: has the cumulative effect of all B.C. treaties been researched? Have the effects of these treaty demands on the lifestyles and opportunities of present and future non-aboriginal populations been documented and included in the treaty settlement equation? Again our answer is no. The existing process, based on an obviously giveaway mentality, could very well result in the non-native public being denied opportunities such as fishing and hunting and access to Crown lands for recreational purposes. In fact, fair and equitable use of all our province's resources will be in doubt and will therefore cause inequities as treaties are finalized.

Question 3: should the allocation of fish and wildlife to aboriginal communities be limited to actual historic use, utilizing historical methods and based on reasonable need? We feel that, yes, to do otherwise clearly makes a mockery of the negotiation process and will certainly deny the non-aboriginal population their share of our province's limited fish and wildlife resources.

Question 4: should fish and wildlife and other resource management and protection laws be enforced equally with respect to all Canadians? As we see it, yes. This clearly has not been the case to date. Aboriginal lawbreakers usually have been subjected to a mere slap on the wrist while non-aboriginal people have been subjected to the full weight of the law.

Question 5: following treaties, should resource management remain in the hands of government rather than giving aboriginal people the right to manage their share of resources, including harvests, independently? As we see it, yes. To do otherwise would be akin to charging two separate entities with the responsibility of managing a business or indeed of governing a country.

Question 6: should there be a time limit attached to the treaty negotiation process? Again, as we see it, yes. To do otherwise would add an uncontrollable degree of uncertainty to the entire treaty process and indeed to our province's economic well-being.

Question 7: should aboriginal treaty rights be extinguished upon the successful negotiation of treaties? Again our answer here is yes. If aboriginal rights are not extinguished in the treaty negotiations, a never-ending, unmanageable process will surely evolve. Such ongoing negotiations would be totally illogical and without precedent. Future generations would be burdened with the difficult task indeed in the fairly equitable management of limited resources of a great country we all own a share of.

Question 8: must all treaty settlements be reasonable and affordable? Again our answer is yes. However, this will not be the case with respect to the present random, piecemeal process where cumulative effects have not been considered.

Question 9: would the existing treaty process result in a system whereby two separate segments of society would be governed by different laws and entitlements? Again our answer is yes. History teaches us that any society which encourages a class system of special rights and privileges for a select few has not, for long, received the support of the majority of its citizens.

Question 10. It is readily apparent that the past and present administration of the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs has, in some cases, resulted in the establishment of a wealthy class of aboriginals while the majority of native people live in substandard conditions. Will this change when treaties are finalized? Our answer, of course, is: we doubt it. Perhaps a wise pre-treaty negotiation exercise would be a serious professional and independent report on the track record of the federal department of aboriginal affairs. This study — with a detailed analysis of the expenditures and accountability attached to the management of the public purse by the enormous, wasteful federal bureaucracy — would surely be long overdue.

In concluding, I would like to thank the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, regarding the proposed public referendum on aboriginal treaties in B.C., for the opportunity to appear before you today. We wholeheartedly support the need for a public referendum on this historic, unprecedented process. To do otherwise would surely represent a disservice to the people of British Columbia and of Canada. I thank you again on behalf of the Kamloops and District Fish and Game Association. If there are any questions, I'll try to answer them as best I can.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Mr. Karpuk, for your presentation. On question No. 6 which you asked, "Should there be a time limit?" we've had a couple of comments on that this afternoon. One was looking at approximately two or three years, and another presentation was within 20 years. Obviously, you've had some involvement in this whole issue. Have you given any thought to what the time limits would be on trying to bring a timely end to this?

H. Karpuk: We've been at it how long? How long is the process that we've been at? I would say five years. We all know what the issues are. To me, any two or three people — whatever it is — sitting down have to find common ground.

G. Trumper: Are you saying that it can be done sooner than later, or is that putting words…?

H. Karpuk: The longer it takes, the more impact there is going to be on the economic well-being of this province. We just can't go on the way it is. We believe in a fair and equitable solution, but there are other things that enter into the equation, as we all know. It's just that this has gone on too long. To me, we could go on and on. If we don't have resolution to this problem, we're going to be back here in 20 years' time. That's what I'm saying. And the cost — who's bearing the cost? I think we all want a solution. I'm just saying there has to be a deadline put on it — five years, whatever. When you're under the gun or under pressure, it's amazing what you can accomplish.

M. Hunter: Yes, just a quick one. I'm a member of your sister association in Nanaimo, and I appreciated your brief. I understand something of the views in my own community. What's driving your association? Are your members, fishing and hunting activists, being put out of areas that they used to hunt and fish in?

H. Karpuk: No, I think the biggest problem is that there's been no third-party consultation. We were basically given notice of this hearing at the eleventh hour. This has been the process before, with the previous government. It was the eleventh hour when they virtually got a copy of the agreement, which there was no third-party consultation to, an hour before it was to be presented. It apparently had already been accepted.

These are the things that irk a lot of people. I just feel that if we haven't got time to prepare, it's a good way of ramming something through and basically pulling the wool over the public's eyes. Again, I have to thank you for allowing me to come here on behalf of the club. What I'm saying is we need more time, and I didn't feel a week was sufficient time.

D. Chutter: Hank, with respect to your point No. 5 on resource management, could you discuss a bit about what lands you're referring to — traditional lands, lands that may be transferred?

H. Karpuk: I'll give you an example of something that really bothers me. There's no mention made of it in previous treaties, other than the allocation of fish. There's a prime example: salmon. In the interior here, there's a limited resource of salmon. If there isn't enough salmon, for example, to fulfil the needs of the natives, where are the additional fish going to come from? Are they going to come from our freshwater lakes? Taking it one step further, if that's the case, I can tell you — I just got the information from the old Ministry of Environment people — that 80 percent of the lakes in this region were not trout-bearing or game-fish-bearing lakes. They've been stocked.

What bothers me is: are these lakes going to be part of the allocation in any settlement? Before the natives were here, those lakes didn't have any fish. We continue to stock these lakes. These lakes were not native fisheries. Is that going to be part of the process? Who's going to pay for the management of that? We've been paying for it all along. They've had the benefit. Nobody is stopping them from going in and fishing. I mean, they do it anyway.

D. Chutter: What I'm asking you is: what are your thoughts on the involvement of aboriginal peoples in resource management and also your comments on comanagement?

H. Karpuk: I agree that they should be party to it. I don't believe that we should shut them out. At the same time they should also share in the cost of managing that resource. There should a formula there in managing that resource is what I'm saying.

J. Les (Chair): No, I think we're all done, Hank. Thank you for coming this afternoon.

At this point we're a little bit ahead of schedule. I don't believe Dian Henderson is here at the moment, so we have a little extra time. Does anyone else want to take advantage of the opportunity and make a presentation?

T. Brumell: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tony Brumell. Again, as I mentioned, I'm a resident of Kamloops.

I've heard so much racist claptrap today, I just don't know where to start. Everything that most people have said today should be pictured with a first nations person sitting in that position. I'm tired of having our lands taken away from us. I'm tired of having our resources restricted for our use. I'm tired of having people take fish away from me, etc., etc. If you look at these things from both directions, you understand what happened 150 years ago or better, and those concerns have never been addressed — not ever. When we get people like Mr. Terlesky up here saying the diatribe that he did, it makes me think that my diatribe will be

I'm very concerned that there aren't any first nations people on this committee. They were never asked. Or if they were asked, they refused, and that should have been a clue. Were they originally invited to be part of this committee?

J. Les (Chair): This is a standing committee of the Legislature, so its membership can only be drawn from the Legislature.

T. Brumell: Okay. Once again we're going to decide what their fate is without any say from them whatsoever. Is that it? All right.

In the past Canada has established a worldwide reputation for our policies on human rights. How this happened I'm not exactly sure. We imprisoned the Japanese citizens during the war, and we did very similar things to the Doukhobors in the southeast corner of our province. Previous to all of this we only became Canada by dint of vast numbers of people, great force and the willingness to apply it against anyone who got in our way. Of course, the locals sure got in our way. Anyway, Canada became this great country in spite of what actually happened. However, we have in some ways been trying to correct some of those errors. The Japanese Canadians have got an apology. Of course, they didn't get any of their homes or their properties back. We were in some way, a little while ago, in the mood to correct some of the offences against the Doukhobors, etc. A Supreme Court decision called Delgamuukw had the propensity to address some of the crimes against humanity with regards to the first nations people in Canada. Of course, it hasn't been applied or even accepted or acted on by the government of B.C.

Why doesn't B.C. recognize the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada and apply Delgamuukw in the terms that it was meant? It would appear that B.C. has its own version of apartheid, and the government is prepared to use democracy as a tool to maintain it. We must bear in mind that democracy and freedom are not the same thing, and using a democratic referendum, the result of which is a foregone conclusion, to keep the Indians down on the res is atrocious. It entrenches a form of democracy as a tool to oppress the minorities of this land.

If this is okay with the government, I would suggest a referendum on a much larger scale. I would like to see a North America–wide referendum, whereby all residents from Mexico to Alaska and Newfoundland would answer the question: who will get Canada's natural resources? The results would be equally predictable.

It must be noted that there are no first nations people on this committee. They may have been invited, and if they have, they are boycotting the process. That should be a clue as to their view of its impartiality. If this referendum goes the way I predict it will, you may be lighting, not quenching, a fire the likes of which you have never seen.

I suggest that you get your heads out of the sand. The fix is really quite simple: simply return and adhere to the promises that were made to the first nations of this land before we ever showed up. One of the members asked here if we should go to the point where the first nations people get their traditional amount of fish and traditional rights and that sort of thing. I suggest that maybe that's true and that we should maybe go back even to before we got here, when they had all of the resources for their use.

I don't mean this totally to be a diatribe, but I'm really upset about this process. While it may be democratic, it is not in the best interests of a free nation, and that's what I think we're supposed to be. Thank you.

P. Nettleton (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Tony, for your presentation. You made the comment that the outcome of the referendum is a foregone conclusion. I can assure you that in fact we have yet to decide how many questions there will be. We have yet to decide the content of the questions. To suggest that the results of the referendum are a foregone conclusion just is not the case. We'll be giving considerable thought to the presentations that were made here today, including yours.

T. Brumell: Could I predict that regardless of the question or questions that you ask, it will go in regards to what the white society wishes and in regards to economic and future land development?

C. Johnson: My name is Chris Johnson. I'm a senior of three score and six, so I don't often get much chance to take part seriously in anything anymore. Old people aren't really listened to very much, but you're forced to for a few minutes. I didn't intend to speak, but there's a few points that seem to be missed in the whole thing on these principles that determine questions on the proposed referendum. The first three that I'm going to mention are, as far as I'm concerned, vital.

The questions on the referendum should be answered separately by natives and non-natives. It shouldn't be balled up into one. It doesn't give you a true view. It's vitally important that there be a separate count of the Indian opinion. And break that up. It should also be answered separately by reserve and non-reserve Indians. The results may or may not show that those under the influence of chiefs and councils

A question must be whether there should be separately negotiated treaties. Separate treaties invite the next Indian band negotiators to leapfrog the previous negotiations to insist on better terms and provisions. Let's say that if you were an Indian, you would do the same thing. It's natural. It's not running down the Indians at all to say they'd do that. Naturally they'd do that. I'm an old union man. I realize we did the same thing. Imagine in the dozens of treaties all the provisions that could be subject to different interpretations. I took a look at the Nisga'a treaty. My oh my, what a lawyers' windfall that one is, eventually. These just invite court cases and, as I say, more of a windfall for lawyers. I mean, the Charter of Rights was the greatest gift ever given to lawyers in the world.

Extinguishment. A question should be whether all agreements in treaties should, within a reasonable time frame, ensure that all Canadians would have equal rights. That's democracy. Our friend Tony back there might not like it, but we're stuck with democracy. We must look ahead. Remember that you're doing things that are good for centuries, maybe. Nothing in a final treaty should continue to provide different rights and tax provisions even a century from now. This kind of racism must end. That's racism.

A question should be whether all the various taxes paid by other citizens should also be paid by Indians. How can anyone be an equal citizen unless they bear an equal tax burden?

A question should be whether the reserve system should continue. I know Indians won't like this, but have most reserves not perpetuated poverty? If being Indians gives them special rights, why should off-reserve Indians have lesser rights?

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't supply copies of this. I did supply you with six copies. I didn't see the 13 requested. I didn't get this list until I got here.

A question should be whether someone with less than a 50 percent heritage should be considered an Indian. I have heard the dividing line is 1/7. I don't know what it is, but I know the chief or band council can place anyone on a list. If you marry an Indian, you can get on the list. That is ridiculous. That is also racist nonsense.

A question should be whether our government should continue to finance any or all of the legal actions that are brought against one or other of the government departments. Legal costs funded by government grants and loans invite doubtful or excessive claims and court actions.

A question should be whether reserves adjacent to cities and towns should be included in those cities and towns, especially their commercial and industrial areas. Right here North Kamloops, Brocklehurst and other districts were amalgamated into the city of Kamloops — and without a vote. We even spread our boundary to include a mining area. The accepted argument was that outlying areas receive the benefits of a central city or town, so they should all equally pay for those benefits.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you. I don't see any questions, so again I'd like to thank you for making your presentation.

R. McNutt: Thank you. I'm going to speak on Todd Mountain for a second. As a young man, basically from '59 to about '73, I hunted Todd Mountain extensively every year and rode the mountain many times during the summer. I had horses. I never once ran into an Indian on that mountain or anywhere at the bottom or anywhere around to the other lakes on the other side of the mountain. I can see where they say they have the rights to that territory. Not once did we see them. I hunted with a doctor in town here and a fellow that had a dental lab. We did that for a long time.

That's basically all I would like to say. They don't have any rights to that mountain. They couldn't get up there in those days. There was nothing there for them to get up for. They came from the bottom at the Adams or at the Neskonlith band or down at the lake at the bottom of the hill. They couldn't get up there that I know of. They didn't have vehicles. They didn't have the right things to do that with. That's basically what I want to say.

Bruce Newton, I believe you wanted another kick at the cat. We've got a few extra minutes here.

B. Newton: I'd just like to draw your attention to attachment B that I provided to you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a coloured copy, but it was too much money to get them all made coloured. You're going to have to do with black and white.

Our experience with specific claims. For the people in the audience, I know you folks know this. Specific claims are supposedly a federal responsibility, as are additions to reserve. What we have found through our experiences is that there is no facility whatsoever for all the stakeholders to be involved. In fact, even in the specific claims process the natives are really quite shut out in terms of an ongoing one. To a lesser extent the Neskonlith and the Kamloops band, as I said, were 13 or 14 years with their claim, an extremely detailed, well-documented claim of 2,000 pages. We had to go to freedom of information to get it, and we have the entire claim. It's beyond understanding why the government takes so long to respond.

In the process of doing that, as the community finds out there's a claim, a lot of tension mounts. The non-native stakeholders, I'll call them, have no way of finding out what's going on. The government hides behind its fiduciary responsibility to the natives, which

I suppose is acceptable. On the other hand, they claim it's a contract and they can't discuss it with us, as is the case with the additions to reserve. Yet ranchers and woodlot holders are impacted.

The purpose of this document that I gave you was just a rough draft to try to stimulate some discussion about how local people might structure an organization on a case-by-case basis for each specific claim, to address local issues and to be able to be involved and express their concerns. I have shown this to a number of the chiefs in the area. One specific chief has given me a strong endorsement. As I said, we've proposed this to a number of MPs and MLAs. The Attorney General has sent me a letter saying he would like to discuss it with me. I guess he's going to do that when he comes to Kamloops at some point.

This isn't a fait accompli. I didn't want to present it to you as if it were something that we wanted to see cast in concrete. It is the kind of thing that would open the door to bring the entire community into the discussion. Thank you for the opportunity to read it.

G. Trumper: Could you just outline how you see this working? I know we've got it in front of us, but just so that I'm clear on it.

B. Newton: Let me talk about the membership. Of course something like that would have to be funded. It involves the Douglas claim in our particular case, because of the specific claim. I felt that you would create a board, and the board would be representative of the native band where the claim is involved. The municipality, by the way, has very little say in it and also doesn't have any say in the addition to reserve policy. I suppose, because these two activities — the specific claim and additions to reserve — are federal, you'd have to have a federal representative.

The board would start to identify, for example, someone who was involved in the ranching community or in the tourism community, an agrologist or someone knowledgable of the watersheds. Then when you got into discussions about the claim itself and about adjoining lands, some understanding can be addressed. If I've got adjoining lands to the Kamloops Indian band, which I do, my concerns can be addressed by someone who may have some specific knowledge that I would like to address to them. Conversely, it gives a vehicle for the Kamloops band, for example, to tell the stakeholders their intent in terms of the land itself and the compatibility — for instance, whether you're going to have an active tourist area right beside a cattle ranch or what have you. That's how I saw it. Once the board was formed, as they needed certain skills and certain pieces of knowledge, they would seek out the subject matter specialist in the area who would be most competent to deal with those.

J. Les (Chair): The next presenter is Chief Ron Ignace from the Skeetchestn.

R. Ignace: I'm here not so much to participate in this but to state my opposition to this process. The reason I oppose a referendum on us is that, number one, that's not how you build relationships between nations. Furthermore, I don't see any referendum on the softwood trade agreement with the United States. I don't see any referendum on the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. I don't see any referendum on the fish treaty with the United States. I don't see any referendum on abortion. I don't see any referendum on the issue of homosexuality.

This is a race-based referendum. In essence, then, it's a racist referendum. I don't think this is the way to go about building relationships between nations. I question the fact that the federal government has a fundamental power to deal with the issue of treaties between nations, and we've often maintained that and said that.

But since you're hell-bent on going into this process, I take this opportunity to share with you some of our history and some of our thoughts. It's not because we agree with this process; I think this process is wrong. It's going to polarize the population of this province, and it's going to entrench people in polarities. Take a look at the Quebec referendum; that hasn't solved the issue. Nor will this solve the issue. What will solve the issue is open, fair negotiations based on the objective of principles of renewing the relationship between us as native peoples, as nations, and Canada.

We've been wrestling with this issue of treaties since 1910. I'll read to you a document. It's quite a lengthy document, but I'll tell you, it packs a wallop of a history. A great man came to this city to sit down. His intent was to negotiate a fair and just settlement with us. Unfortunately, he got kicked out of office because his election campaign was based on free trade with the United States. The conservative governments, who just recently negotiated a free trade agreement without going to a referendum, went on to that free trade agreement with the United States. The gentleman I'm talking about is Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Premier of the Dominion of Canada. This is from the chiefs here.

I could sit here. The sad part of this situation is that…. [The presenter spoke Secwepemc.] Is there anybody there that can talk to me in my language? The first fundamental flaw of this process is that there hasn't been consent of us to look at what kind of path we could go down to renew the confederation in Canada. That's what this is all about: partnerships. We've been putting our hand out for partnerships with Canada for over a hundred years.

I'll tell you a little story. I'll truncate it very shortly. It's a very long story, but I'll tell you one version of it. That's the reason why I'm here. Coyote was a great man, a trickster, a teacher. He was the person that laid out the boundaries of the Shuswap nation and gave us our laws, our languages, our history, our culture. He

created the mountains as we see them today. He was travelling through, conducting his work. [The presenter spoke Secwepemc.]

He met Kingfisher. Kingfisher invited him into his house for a feast. While Kingfisher was feasting him, he said: "Coyote, this is not your way. If you go down this road, if you copy my powers, it'll kill you." All the while Coyote was watching and saying: "I'll watch his powers. I'll steal it, and I know I can do it too. I'm a great man." Kingfisher climbs up his house pole, dives and catches a fish, brings it out, glistening in the sun, and feasts Coyote. Coyote has to return the visit. He feasts Kingfisher and says: "Let me show you. I'm going to show this guy I have equal powers — great powers." He climbs up on his house pole. [The presenter spoke Secwepemc.]

Kingfisher is sitting, waiting for his host to feast him. He doesn't show, so he goes and looks for him. Here he finds Coyote stuck in a hole in the ice. He says: "I told that guy this was going to cause him harm. It's not his way." The first thought that came to his mind, though, of what he was going to do to Coyote, looking at him stuck in that hole in the ice, was to kick him in the ice hole. But instead he pulls Coyote out of the hole in the ice and gives him back his life. Then he says: "See, that was not your way." That was not Coyote's powers.

We have two separate powers here. That is not the way to do business. If we do this, it's going to lead to the destruction of this country. I'm here to give you our history so that you may best understand, so we can get back on the right road to negotiating a renewal of a partnership — one that leads to the reaffirmation of a confederacy called Canada.

This is serious business what's being done here, and the way you've gone about it, you've already alienated the Shuswap nation chiefs. They don't want to be here. The only reason I come here is to voice my concern and opposition to the road that you're going down now. Holding this kind of referendum is wrong. I don't see you holding referendums on other issues. It's a race-based referendum. It's against human rights. It violates human rights, and it's wrong.

When Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to Kamloops, our chiefs were very interested that the Prime Minister of Canada would come here, and the chiefs expected much of him as the head of the great Canadian nation. They felt confident that he would see to it that we received fair and honourable treatment.

"Our confidence in you has increased since we noted of late the attitude of your government towards the Indian rights movement of this country, and we hope that with your help our wrongs may at last be righted.

"We speak to you more freely because you are a member of the white race with whom we first became acquainted and we call in our tongue 'real whites.'" [The presenter spoke in Secwepemc.]

"One hundred years next year they came amongst us here at Kamloops and erected a trading post. After the other whites came to this country in 1858 we differentiated them from the first whites as their manners were so much different, and we applied the term 'real whites' to the latter" — viz, the fur traders of the Northwest and Hudson's Bay companies. As the great majority of the companies' employees were French-speaking, the term latterly became applied by us as a designation for the whole French race.

"The 'real whites' we found were good people. We could depend on their word, and we trusted and respected them. They did not interfere with us nor attempt to break up our tribal organizations, laws and customs. They did not try to force their conceptions of things on us to our harm. Nor did they stop us from catching fish, hunting, etc. They never tried to steal or appropriate our country, nor take our food and life from us. They acknowledged our ownership of the country and treated our chiefs as men" — just as the constitution, the Royal Proclamation and other laws have recognized our rights in this country.

"They were the first to find us in this country. We never asked them to come here, but nevertheless we treated them kindly and hospitably and helped them all we could. They had made themselves, as it were, our guests" — in our house as you are, in this town, guests in Shuswap house. Yet you did not come to us in the manner you should have, as a nation to a nation, to talk of fundamental issues.

"We treated them as such and then waited to see what they would do. As we found they did us no harm, our friendship with them became lasting. Because of this we have a warm heart to the French at the present day. We expect good from Canada. When they first came among us, there were only Indians here. They found the people of each tribe supreme in their own territory and having tribal boundaries known and recognized by all." Other nations around us recognized and respected our boundaries. We know those boundaries today. We have protocols on what we have to do to enter another nation's house. We did not have use of this land, as some people have said, equivalent to that of crows and wolves. No, we are human beings.

"The country of each tribe was just the same as a very large farm or ranch" — if you need an analogy to understand what we're trying to say — "belonging to all the people of the tribe, from which they gathered their food. On it they had game which they hunted for food and clothing, etc; fish which they got in plenty for food; grass and vegetation on which their horses grazed and game lived, and much of which furnished materials for manufacture, etc.; stone which furnished pipes, utensils and tools, etc.; trees which furnished firewood, materials for houses and utensils; plants, roots, seeds, nuts and berries which grew abundantly and were gathered in their season, just the same as the crops on a ranch, and were used for food; minerals, shells, etc., which were used for ornaments and for paints; water which was free to all." We didn't have to go buy our water in bottles like we do today.

"Thus fire, water, food, clothing and all the necessaries of life were obtained in abundance from the lands of each tribe. All the Shuswap people had equal rights of access to everything they required" — within

the Shuswap nation's traditional homeland territory. You will see that the ranch of each tribe was the same as its life, and without it the people could not have lived. We cannot survive without our land. The land is our life.

"Just 52 years ago the other whites came to this country." Remember, this is the chiefs talking in 1910 to the Prime Minister of Canada. "They found us just the same as the first real whites had found us, only we had larger bands of horses and we cultivated the land. They found us happy, healthy, strong and numerous. Each tribe was still living in its own house" — in other words, on its own ranch. "No one interfered with our rights or disputed our possession of our own houses and ranches — our homes and our lives."

"We were friendly and helped these whites also, for had we not learned the first whites had done us no harm? Only when some of them killed us, we revenged upon them. We kept that authority to punish those that transgressed our laws. Then we thought there were some bad ones among them, but surely on the whole they must be good. Besides, they are the Queen's people, and we had already heard great things about the Queen from the real whites. We expected her subjects would do us no harm but rather improve us by giving us knowledge and enabling us to do some of the wonderful things that they could do."

"At first they looked only for gold. We knew the latter was our property, but as we did not use it much or need it to live by, we did not object to their searching for it. They told us: "'Our country is rich, and you will be made wealthy by our coming. We wish just to pass over your lands in quest of gold.' Soon they saw the country was good, and some of them made up their minds to settle it. They commenced to take up pieces of land here and there. They told us they wanted only to use these pieces of land for a few years, and they would hand them back to us in improved condition. Meanwhile, they would give us some of the products they raised for the loan of our land." That has never happened.

"Thus, they commenced to enter our 'houses' or live on our 'ranches.' With us, when a person enters our house, he becomes our guest, and we must treat him hospitably as long as he shows no hostile intentions. At the same time, we expect him to return to us equal treatment for what he receives." Let's see if these guests in our house have done that.

Some of our chiefs said: "These people wish to be partners of us in our country. We must therefore be the same as brothers to them and live as one family. We will share equally in everything — half and half — in land, in water, in timber, etc. What is ours will be theirs, and what is theirs will be ours." In other words, our chiefs were prepared to give up half of our homeland to Canada as long as we kept half. What other nation in this world would give up half of their homeland to another nation without firing a shot? Answer me that.

The objective they had in mind was that we will help each other to be great and good. That is the fundamental offer that our chiefs made for a renewed confederation in this country, for a renewed partnership — a renewal, strengthening and binding of the relationship between us and the Queen. We're not talking percentages here; we're talking fundamental rights.

"The whites made a government in Victoria," or perhaps the Queen made it. We have heard it stated both ways. The chiefs dwelt there. At this time they did not deny that the Indian tribes owned the whole country and everything in it. They told us we did. "We were hopeful. We trusted the whites and waited patiently for their chiefs to declare their intentions towards us and our lands. We knew what had been done in the neighbouring states. We remembered what we'd heard about the Queen being so good to the Indians and that her laws, carried by her chiefs, were always just and better than the American laws."

"Presently chiefs — government officials — commenced to visit us and had talks with some of our chiefs. They told us to have no fear. The Queen's law would prevail in this country, and everything would be well for the Indians here. They said a very large reservation would be staked off for us southern interior tribes, and the tribal lands outside of this reservation the government would buy from us for white settlement. They let us think this would be done soon and meanwhile, until this reserve was set apart and our lands settled for, they assured us we would have perfect freedom of travelling and camping and the same liberties as from time immemorial to hunt, fish, graze and gather our food supplies wherever we desired; also, that all trails, land, water, timber, etc., would be as free for us to access as formerly."

"Our chiefs were agreeable to these propositions, so we waited for treaties to be made and everything settled. We had never known white chiefs to break their word, so we trusted. In the meantime, white settlement progressed. Our chiefs held us in check. They said: 'Do nothing against the whites. Something we do not understand retards them from keeping their promise. They will do the square thing by us in the end.'"

"What have we received for our good faith, friendliness and patience? Gradually, the whites of this country became more and more powerful, and we less and less powerful, they little by little changed their policy towards us and commenced to put restrictions on us. Their government or chiefs have taken every advantage of our friendliness, weakness and ignorance to impose on us in every way. They treat us as subjects without any agreement to that effect and force their laws on us without our consent, whether they are good for us or not. They say they have authority over us. They have broken down our old laws and customs, no matter how good, by which we regulated ourselves. They laugh at our chiefs and brush them aside. Minor affairs amongst ourselves which do not affect them in the least and which we can easily settle better than they can, they drag into their courts. They enforce their own laws one way for the poor white and yet another for the Indian." This is exactly what's happening again here today — history repeating itself.

"They have knocked down the posts of all the Indian tribes." The posts are the boundaries of our nation — not our reserves; our nation, the whole Shuswap territory, the 56,000 square miles of Shuswap territory. [The presenter spoke Secwepemc.] It means people of the spread-out lands. "They say there are no lines, except what they make." Our boundaries, the boundaries of our homeland, no longer count — discarded, denied.

"They have taken possession of all the Indian country and claim it as their own — just the same as taking the 'house' or 'ranch,' and therefore the life of every Indian tribe into their possession. They have never consulted us in any of these matters, nor made any agreement nor signed any papers with us." Show me a paper where we've done that. Show me a paper where we've signed away our land. Give that to me. You don't have it; it's never been done. We're on unceded territory.

"They have stolen our lands and everything on them and continue to use the same for their own purpose. They treat us as less than children and allow us no say in anything. They say the Indians know nothing and own nothing, and yet their power and wealth have come from our belongings. The B.C. government has trampled underfoot the Queen's law, which we believed guaranteed us our rights. This is how our guests have treated us — the brothers we received hospitably in our house."

"After a time when they saw that our patience might get exhausted and that we might cause trouble if we thought all the land was to be occupied by whites, they set aside many small reservations for us here and there over the country. This was their proposal, not ours." The reservation system was their proposal — the provincial government's proposal, not ours. "We never accepted these reservations as settlement for anything, nor did we sign any papers or make any treaties about the same. They thought we'd be satisfied with this, but we have never been satisfied and never will be, until we get our rights."

"We thought the setting apart of these reservations was the start of some scheme that they had evolved for our benefit and that they would now continue until they had more than fulfilled their promises. Although we have waited long, we have been disappointed. We have always felt the injustice done to us, but we did not know how to obtain redress. We knew that it was useless to go to war. What could we do?"

"Even your government in Ottawa, in whose charge we had been handed by the B.C. government, gave us no enlightenment. We had no powerful friends. The Indian agents and the Indian office at Victoria appeared to neglect us. Some offers of help in the way of agricultural implements, schools, medical attendance, aid to the aged, etc., from the Indian department were at first refused by many of our chiefs or were never petitioned for, because for a time we thought the Ottawa and Victoria governments were the same as one and these things would be charged against us and rated as payment for our land." That's exactly what's trying to be used against us today. We're being vilified for welfare and all kinds of other things.

"Thus we got along the best way we could and asked for nothing. For a time we did not feel the stealing of our land very heavily. As the country was sparsely settled, we still had considerable liberty in the way of hunting, fishing and grazing over most of it. However, owing to increased settlement in late years this has changed, and we are being more and more restricted to our reservations, which in most places are unfit or inadequate to maintain us. Except we can get fair play we can see we will go to the wall, and most of us will be reduced to beggary or to continuous wage slavery" — in this, our own homeland.

"We have also learned lately that the B.C. government claims absolute ownership of our reservations, which means that we are practically landless. We only have a loan of these reserves in life rent or at the option of the B.C. government. Thus we find ourselves without any real home in this, our own country. In a petition signed by 14 of our chiefs and sent to your Indian department in July 1908, we pointed out the disabilities under which we labour owing to the inadequacy of most of our reservations, some having hardly any good land and others no irrigation water, etc., our limitations regarding pasture lands for stock owing to fencing of so-called government lands by whites; the severe restrictions put on us lately by the government regarding hunting and fishing" — to this day we get charged for hunting and fishing; we had a huge fishing case that set us back, even though there was Sparrow that ruled in our favour — "the depletion of salmon by overfishing by the whites and other matters affecting us. In many places we are debarred from camping, travelling, gathering roots and obtaining wood and water as heretofore. Our people are fined and imprisoned for breaking the game and fish laws and using the same game and fish which we were told would always be ours for food. Gradually we are becoming regarded as trespassers over a large portion of this, our country. Our old people say: 'How are we to live?'" [The presenter spoke Secwepemc.]

When we look around this table, we sit across from each other. The United Nations says that you have a No. 1 lifestyle in this country; the native people of this country have No. 67. We're practically in the root cellar in a country that is a wealthy country. How is that? This tells you why. It's no accident. The victims are always victimized as the criminals. Once again that's happening here today.

"Our old people say: 'How are we to live if the government takes our food from us? They must give us other food in its place.' Conditions of living have been thrust upon us which we did not expect and which we consider in great measure unnecessary and injurious. We have no grudge against the white race as a whole nor against the settlers, but we want to have an equal chance with them of making a living. We welcome them to this country. It is not, in most cases, their fault. They have taken up and improved and paid for their land in good faith." We recognize that these people behind me have done that.

"It is their government which is to blame by heaping up injustice on us." However, this does not get them off the hook. "It is also their duty to see their government does right by us and gives us a square deal." You have a duty to do that and a responsibility.

"We condemn the whole policy of the B.C. government towards the Indian tribes of this country as utterly unjust, shameful and blundering in every way." You continue to blunder to this day, unfortunately. Let's quit blundering.

"We denounce the same as being the main cause of the unsatisfactory condition of Indian affairs in this country and of animosity and friction with the whites." It's not us that's causing the animosity and the friction; it's the policy of the governments of this land. Yet we're compelled to fight with these people here. It's not right.

This is a 1910 document. We're still talking about the same damn thing today. History's repeating itself. Are we not intelligent people who understand and learn from history?

"So long as what we consider justice is withheld from us, so long will dissatisfaction and unrest exist among us, and we will continue to struggle to better ourselves." How prophetic.

"For the accomplishments of this end we and other Indians tribes of this country are now uniting, and we ask the help of yourself and your government in this fight for our rights. We believe it is not the desire nor policy of your government that these conditions should exist. We demanded that our land question be settled and ask that treaties be made between the government and each of our tribes, in the same manner as accomplished with Indian tribes of other provinces of Canada and in the neighbouring parts of the United States. We desire that every matter of importance to each tribe be a subject of treaty, so we may have a definite understanding with the government on all questions of moment between us and them." No 5 percent or 10 percent on all matters. Half and half — the prescriptions.

"In a declaration made last month and signed by 24 of our Indian chiefs" — I have a copy that I'll give you — "we have stated our position on these matters. Now we sincerely hope you will carefully consider everything we have herewith brought before you and that you will recognize the disadvantages we labour under and the darkness of the outlook for us if these questions are not speedily settled. Hoping you've had a pleasant sojourn in this country, and wishing you a good journey home, we remain

What these people are talking about is a fundamental renewal of a fundamental relationship here based on mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing — not hoarding, not oppressing, not dominating, not dictating — and mutual responsibility. We recognize that with every right comes a responsibility. We will not shrug that responsibility.

Treaties that do not recognize and respect the fact that there are three orders — not levels, but orders — of governments of Canada are doomed to failure. The three orders of government are federal, provincial and aboriginal. The constitution of Canada recognizes that fact. Delgamuukw recognizes it. The Royal Proclamation recognizes that. You guys know those laws. Live up to the rule of law. Canada is a signatory to international covenants. Live up to the signing of those international covenants.

The treaty process must, from the outset, distinguish between an aboriginal nation as a body of people who possess a shared sense of national identity and constitute a predominant population and certain territory or a collection of territories. We're talking about the whole Shuswap nation.

First nations communities refers to a relatively small group of aboriginal people residing in a single locality and forming a part of a larger group of aboriginal nations of people. Skeetchestn, my community, is not a nation. I have no power and authority to sign a treaty. Otherwise, it is merely a contribution agreement between us and the government of Canada or outside appropriate authorities. A treaty has to be between nations; otherwise it has no legal force in effect and can be overturned and provides no certainty.

You're negotiating how many — 140 tables right now? There's 140 different communities?

R. Ignace: That won't work. We won't be there. The way you're going, this treaty process that you're launching won't succeed. Our chiefs won't come to the table.

Furthermore, it must respect the fundamental fact that our rights are different and truly…generous and are collective in nature.

Our rights, it says, are race based. We're many different nations. It was some white guy who was lost on the high seas that gave us the name Indian. I'm not Indian; I'm Shuswap. That's another nation. I have rights not because of the colour of my skin but by the mere fact that I've been here for 10,000 years and was a nation before other nations came and imposed themselves on us. Your laws recognize that fact. Now honour those laws. This is not a race issue. It's a rights issue, a fundamental human rights issue.

There are other nations. You have the Samis. They're white. They have rights. You have Monaco, you have Lichtenstein, you have the Vatican, and you have the Navajo nation. That doesn't present a problem, but here in B.C. it's a problem. Why is that? It's because we're beginning not from the rights-based perspective. It's been coloured by race.

A treaty principle must respect and uphold international laws, Canada's laws and international covenants pertinent to aboriginal rights and title. Furthermore, it must be based on a recognition and respect that aboriginal

societies and cultures evolve and transform over time, and that legal recognition of aboriginal rights is premised on continuity, not conformity with the past. The treaty process must recognize that, in accordance with the laws of this land.

In view of this, treaties must not and cannot in any way impose, nor is extinguishment necessary or desirable. How to pursue treaty negotiations is all laid out in your laws, and it's laid out in your Royal Proclamation. This process is unnecessary, and it's wrong. It's race based and therefore racist. It's not going to work. [The presenter spoke Secwepemc.]

I come here to speak to you, not to participate in this process but to tell you why you're going down the wrong road. I hope you will correct your ways so that we can get on the right path. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings, but the issues that we're dealing with are so fundamental that we have to speak clearly, we have to speak forcefully, and we have to speak from our heart so that you can clearly understand who I am, who we are as Secwepemc, where we've been, where we've come from and where we hope to go.

Again, I do this so that we can develop a path for developing a renewal of a partnership, renewing the Confederation of Canada and establishing three orders of government in this country so that we can have a strong and free Canada based not on race but on partnership of peoples.

Fear us not. You have no reason or cause to fear us. To fear us will create wrong-headed thinking. To fear us will create racist thinking. To fear us will lead to the destruction of Canada. That wouldn't be our doing. We don't want that. We want partners — equal partners. Again, we've put out our hand to Canada many times. All we ask is: understand us.

The next presenter I have on the speakers list is Dian Henderson. Good afternoon.

D. Henderson: Good afternoon. I don't know how else to begin other than to say that I just think it's an insult to first nations people, and it's something that I feel quite ashamed of as a non-aboriginal — that we whites are not showing some integrity by honouring the words of our forefathers. It appears to me that much of this process has, as we've just learned, already been negotiated, and yet our governments, both federal and provincial, want to keep redefining the rules. Are we a people of our spoken word or not? The government cannot download or hand off the responsibility to resolve such a complex issue as this. That would once again be the sign of a very irresponsible government.

This issue is coming to light mostly because first nations people are now finally healing. They are now ready to stand up for themselves and lay claim to what is rightly theirs. You see, we non-aboriginals were fine with the status of treaties when first nations people were oppressed, quiet, subdued and passive. Now that they are becoming independent and strong, we say that we must now clearly define the treaties. They have been clear.

It seems to me that we still all want it on our terms, not on their terms. We seem to think that because we've stayed here as guests for nine or ten generations, we have become the rightful landowners. If we really want to find out how to proceed with this, we must first ask first nations people. They should guide us. I really believe in this process.

Furthermore, it even seems ludicrous to me that a non-aboriginal majority could attempt to offer a simple yes or no answer, or answers, to an issue that is anything but simple, an issue that is first aboriginal. Years and generations of anger, animosity, misunderstanding and rage between these two cultures cannot be dissipated in a couple of consolatory questions. I've often heard this animosity from non-aboriginals, expressed on issues such as: "Those Indians get free money anyway. What are they complaining about?" This is a real indication of the degree of ignorance that has been bred in this country.

Do we not understand that this is native land? We didn't win it; we didn't buy it. We didn't really even bargain it. We simply took it — and I wouldn't even say simply. We did it quite strategically, methodically. We took it over. We did it even through manipulation and pretence and, we know, through a form of genocide. As a result, this longstanding distrust and anger and animosity make this issue totally an unfair referendum question, especially when you consider the degree of bias and prejudice that would occur on both sides of the argument.

Actually, this entire process is another strategy of intimidation, as I sit here and shake to give this presentation. When you consider that only those who would feel somewhat articulate, confident, educated or brave and bold would step forward anyway to give their opinions and suggestions, it's not the common people that would really come out. Therefore, you've left out a large proportion of people who might feel less literate, unconfident, suppressed, threatened or even victimized. In essence, you've already omitted the opinions and suggestions of a countless number of people, including some who may be affected most by this referendum.

If this committee honestly wants to know how to proceed, then two things are necessary. First and foremost, ask first nations people first. Go and listen to the chiefs. Ask them, out of due respect, what method of resolve they see. Secondly, we must stop the propaganda, the misinformation or the neglect of information and instead make an effort to educate about the truth, particularly regarding Crown land and its ownership.

I cannot envision how the government plans to put this to a referendum. As early as next year seems even more ludicrous. I really don't think it's a wise act. I hope all of this is more than just lip service and that genuine consideration will be given to those who own this land. I thank you, if indeed you are approaching

B. Belsey: I'm not sure it's a question, Dian. I do have a statement, though. I think maybe it hasn't been made clear — the purpose of the referendum — what we're trying to do here. We're not trying to negotiate treaties. We're not saying how treaties should be negotiated.

The area of British Columbia that I represent as an MLA has about 50 percent first nations. In my travels around my riding and in the opportunities that I've had to talk to first nations people, one of the topics that came up very often was the referendum, the treaty process and the difficulty that we're having with it — not we as a province, not we as a government, but we as people of British Columbia. The process is slow; the process is expensive. Very few advances are being made in this process. As a government we understand that part of the problem is that maybe those negotiating or mediating do not have a clear mandate to work with. We're moving around this province and talking to people to try and determine principles that could be included in a referendum that would, in the end, help give those negotiators a clear mandate. On behalf of the people of the province, we want to move the process forward as quickly as we can.

I've heard a number of people tell us that the questions we're going to ask won't work. There's nobody at this table that has questions yet. We have no questions. That's why we're out talking to people. We're hoping that people will tell us what kinds of questions should be there. What kinds of questions are fair, are proper, can be understood and fall within the rules and regulations of, say, the British North America Act or the Canadian constitution? There are certain regulations and laws within there that we have to work with. We're well aware of them.

Your comment about propaganda and education is a very good one. I think one of the difficulties we have is just how well educated the people out there are. Will they understand when we bring these questions forward? That's another concern we have when we talk about what kinds of questions we do put out there. Will people understand them? They have to be maybe short, simple, clear, straightforward questions on principle.

Timing. I think most people would agree that the process is slow and cumbersome. We have to find a way to change that. It may look like we're rushing through a process, but I don't think we are, and a lot of people I've spoken to in my riding, anyway, don't think we are. Let's sit down. Let's try and find some direction for those people that are negotiating, and let's try and do it through a referendum.

D. Henderson: But as Chief Ron Ignace said, this whole process, even as we sit here, is not a representation of first nations people. It's not based on their input. The basis of what I've said was that we need to consult with them first. If anything, that's the place to begin. Without a doubt, we still are based on guest principles. It's like a guest that has overstayed his welcome and now puts his name on your property ownership title. We need to ask them first.

B. Belsey: I think you have a good point there. I think that we are using whatever vehicles or avenues we can to talk to all the people of British Columbia, including first nations. We have these forums, we have a website, and we accept letters. I think we have opened up as many avenues as we can to hear from people — first nations or non–first nations. Come and tell us what we should be doing. Thank you for your presentation.

J. Les (Chair): At this point I have no further speakers on the speakers list until 6:30 this evening. I will recess the meeting until 6:30 tonight.

J. Les (Chair): Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call this hearing back to order. Thank you all for coming. Before we get underway, I'd like to especially welcome Betty Hinton, the MP for Kamloops. Thank you for being here.

T. Joslin: Good evening. My name is Ted Joslin, and I have presented a brief to the committee. It appears that you each have a copy in front of you. This is a three-page brief, and I would like to make a few remarks of a general nature concerning that before I refer in detail to the brief.

First, my interest in aboriginal affairs goes back quite a long way. In the sixties I was working under, for, with — I'm not sure — Jean Chrétien, who was then the minister of aboriginal affairs. That was my introduction to the Indian Act and matters of that nature. In the seventies I was closely involved with Prof. Peter Oberlander in his development of the industrial reserve here in Kamloops, which gave me another close insight and interest in the aboriginal community. And I have worked with Clarence Jules and Gus Gottfriedsen, two well-known chiefs of the band here.

Having said that, my attitude — and I guess this is important, though we don't always talk about it — has always been that we're all brothers. I have had a good relationship with the aboriginal people. As far as the problems that have arisen between the aboriginals and the non-aboriginals, it has always seemed to me that

the sooner we can find a solution and live in peace together as brothers, the better it would be for both communities.

However, it has also seemed to me that from the point of view of the aboriginal community, they have, for whatever reason, tended to resent or object to or avoid becoming involved with Canada as a country. Everything that I have heard from them — and I have listened to presentations by them on many occasions — has indicated to me that the last thing they want is — that horrible word — assimilation, or to be part of Canada.

I'm an immigrant here, and I'm a Canadian citizen. I've always been very proud of that. I've been here for a long time. One of the first things I wanted to do was to become a Canadian citizen. So it surprises me a little when the aboriginals see what we have to offer and are aware of the privileges that each Canadian citizen has, they would be so reluctant to throw in their lot with the rest of us and become what I think is something that they could be proud of: an aboriginal Canadian citizen.

What they appear to be looking for — and I think this is crucial to the whole discussion — is self-government. This, in a very brief comment, really bothers me, because we have had a province in this country wanting self-government for certainly longer than I've been here, and that has created nothing but trouble. If aboriginal groups want self-government, then the Chinese might like it, and the Japanese and the Germans and so forth. We will finish up by, in effect, perpetuating the reserve system, which is just exactly what we're all trying to get away from.

Anyway, enough of that. I believe we're here to discuss the referendum. So far as the referendum is concerned, I believe — and this is why I'm here — it is an excellent first step in arriving at a consensus of the opinions of the community — I mean the community of Canadians or, if we're talking provincially, the community of the province — that could form the basis of an agreement. Without that consensus I see no progress.

We have had proposals for settlement offered by the federal government. We have had Meech Lake. We have had Charlottetown. We have had numbers of proposals which have been offered and rejected not by the aboriginal community but by the Canadian population. Therefore, it seems to me that if we're going to be progressive and successful in this matter, we have to offer, we have to discuss and we have to talk about a proposed solution which has the support of the general population. That is why I think a referendum is so important. With a referendum asking the right questions and getting a wide response, we could go a long way to finding ourselves with the basis of a settlement. Such a settlement, obviously, needs everybody's input. It needs to be generous, it needs to be fair, and it needs to be soon.

Just to sum up these few words, I would say that my plea is for everybody to get involved. Give us an opinion. Let us have something which is comprehensive, broadly based and asks the right questions. Look with an open mind at the answers and come up with a solution.

Now, that is all I want to say in a preamble. You have my submission in front of you. I don't want to bore you by reading it if you don't need me to. I'm sure you'll have lots of opportunity to read it later. If you wish me to read it, I'd be happy to do so.

J. Les (Chair): I appreciate the fact that you precirculated your brief, Mr. Joslin. It's a very presentable form in which you've done that. I'm sure that members of the committee may well have a question or two. Perhaps we can do that.

You mentioned your earlier involvement pre-1970, I gather. What exact involvement did you have? Was it under the Department of Indian Affairs?

T. Joslin: Yes. I came to this country in '56. By a year later I was involved in the assessment field, being a qualified appraiser. It wasn't long before I was doing assessments and valuations for Indian bands. I was working for the Indian Affairs department in determining lease values and land appraisals in various circumstances throughout the province. That's how I first became involved, and that's how I met the now Prime Minister.

You mentioned on page 3 of your presentation a third order of government placing aboriginals outside of the governance of Canada. Could you elaborate a little bit more in terms of what your meaning is behind that concept?

T. Joslin: I am against, as you might have gathered, a third order of government. It seems to me that it is fraught with danger. It places aboriginals further away from the mainstream of Canadian people. I think that is a negative way to go.

However, I put that question in there because when the questions are presented to the public, they should be broadly based. They should not all be in favour of one side of an argument. There are a number of people, I think mainly aboriginals, who would like to see some form of government which extends beyond the scope of the Canadian authority. So I put that in for those people who feel that they would like it. I am personally against it.

There are some other questions here to which I would say no, but I think that's the way questions should be posed. Does that answer that question?

B. Belsey: Thank you, Ted, for your presentation and your paper. On page 3 you have examples of some questions. There's one in here on scrapping the Indian Act. With your past experience that you've told us — your involvement with federal government — I'm just

wondering what you base that on. Is there something you'd like to share with us?

T. Joslin: I base it not on an intimate knowledge of the act but on having been acquainted with it on a superficial basis for a number of years and having heard criticisms of it.

I am quite convinced — and there are a lot of other people who share this — that the act is thoroughly outdated. It may have had a good purpose at one time. I'm not suggesting — this is a little bit off the cuff to say here — that we scrap the Indian Act. I would expect that if we do that, there would be some issues which need to be taken care of, to be picked up.

Certainly the Indian Act is an anachronism. It does not serve any purpose. Most of us don't like it, and most of the aboriginal people don't like it. One of the key things about the Indian Act, of course, is the trusteeship. The Indian Act was really set in place to give the government of the day an opportunity to hold the affairs of the aboriginal people in trust. While that may have been an excellent idea at one time, today it is holding back what I think is the proper development of the Indian people as a community, as part of this country.

They need to be set free, to be encouraged to be independent. They need to own part of this country. They should own real estate and develop businesses. They should be part. If they're not going to be part of this country and this society, they will find themselves, I suggest, permanently sidelined. This is not good for the country, and it is not good for them.

We want to get away from the attitude that the aboriginal people need the government of Canada to look after their affairs. This is basically the purpose of the Indian Act, to say: "Okay, we'll take care of you. If you want to write a lease, have somebody write it up, send it to us, and we'll sign it on behalf of the Queen." It's a nursemaid kind of act, and we need to get away from it.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Mr. Joslin. One of the questions that you've posed is allowing those who wish to settle claims as individuals, rather than as bands, to do so. Have you heard that comment from aboriginal people or not?

T. Joslin: Not specifically, but I have heard indirectly from people that I trust to be honest with me that in speaking to aboriginal people, they have felt that their point of view is not being well represented by their leaders.

This is not in criticism of their leaders. This is in criticism, perhaps, of the system. They do not have the opportunity to tell us whether they are happy with something or not. Rather, I think they have their decisions made for them in the same way that, in many cases, we do. Frankly, I don't think we have a representative federal government. Very often they do things we disagree with, and we tell them afterwards that we didn't like it.

I think it is much better if we can involve people in decision-making in the same way that we involve people in a referendum in order to get a consensus. I think in some ways it might be a good alternative to say to an individual aboriginal: "What do you think of this? Are you interested in this? Would you like to be independent on this basis or with this compensation, with this piece of land?" I think we have to consider that. That may not be practical, but then again dealing with groups of aboriginals through their chiefs may not be practical as a means of satisfying aboriginals. That's a point of view I think we need to consider, and that's why I put it in there.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Well, thank you very much for your presentation this evening. It's very much appreciated.

A Voice: Before we go on, there's one problem here. Something's very wrong. You've got to rid of that damn flag, that U.S. flag. Get rid of the damn flag.

J. Dick-Billy: You each have a copy of our written submission. I'll just give you a brief outline, and then I will read it out for the benefit of the audience tonight. We're going to give you a brief background of the history of our people so you have a better understanding, and then we will get into the issue of the referendum and the treaty.

As you know, most native bands in B.C. are boycotting this referendum issue — I'm sure you found that in your other hearings — as you can see from this room tonight. We wanted to attend to make sure that our position is heard. That's why we're here tonight. We're representing the Neskonlith Indian band and the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Centre. I'll just read out the statement and then answer questions if anyone has any later.

[The presenter spoke a language other than English.] We are the Secwepemc people, who have lived on our traditional territories for thousands of years. We are peoples with a distinct culture and language. My name is Janice Dick-Billy. I am the spokesperson for the Neskonlith band on behalf of Chief Arthur Manuel and spokesman for the Skwelkwek'welt Protection Centre.

I would first of all like to welcome you to our territory on behalf of the Neskonlith people. As you know, we have been reoccupying and living on our traditional lands in the Skwelkwek'welt area, also known as Sun Peaks. Since we have begun to live on our lands, we have been subject to deliberate attempts to remove us from our homelands with the assistance of the provincial government ministries and the RCMP. The latest assault to our people was the recent issuance of a trespass notice. We were issued this trespass notice despite the fact that we are still the landowners of these areas.

The members of the Neskonlith Indian band have not entered into any treaties with Canada that have

ceded or otherwise extinguished our aboriginal title to our traditional territory. Over the past 200 years, since the newcomers first arrived on our territory, the Secwepemc people have fought to achieve recognition of our aboriginal title and rights to the lands and resources of our traditional territory. Through the Neskonlith community and the Shuswap nation tribal council as well as national and international forums, the Secwepemc people have fought vigorously to have our aboriginal title recognized by Canada and British Columbia.

In the 1997 Delgamuukw decision the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that aboriginal peoples have a collective proprietary interest in their aboriginal title lands as well as an economic interest in aboriginal title lands. The Supreme Court has found aboriginal tenure is inherent. In section 35(1) its existence is constitutionally entrenched. All legislatures, Crown officials and courts have the duty to protect our aboriginal tenure as part of the supreme law of Canada under section 52(1). To relieve them of their duty would deny constitutional supremacy and its commitment to the rule of law.

Canada and the provincial government have chosen to focus all of their efforts and resources in B.C. on negotiating treaties within the B.C. treaty process. We were not consulted about the development of the BCTC process. All treaties negotiated under the BCTC process are subject to the constraints of Canada's 1986 comprehensive claims policy. The 1986 policy is based on a surrender and grant-back process. This means that indigenous peoples negotiate with the Crown for recognition of specialized treaty rights. In exchange, the indigenous people agreed to surrender all of their aboriginal title to the totality of their traditional territories.

The Neskonlith band and Chief Arthur Manuel as chair of the SNTC would never consider the option of negotiating a treaty under the 1986 policy. The Neskonlith and the Secwepemc people have given very clear direction that they will never agree to a process where they have to extinguish their aboriginal title in exchange for unlimited treaty rights. We strongly believe that any treaty negotiation process which does not recognize aboriginal title and which requires the blanket extinguishment of aboriginal title is both illegal and invalid.

Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada decision confirmed what we already know and believe about our Secwepemc title and rights. In the fourth year of the Delgamuukw decision, the provincial government has not responded in an open manner with any long-term meaningful plan about how to address the recognition of our Secwepemc title and proprietary interests in lands and resources. We ask you, the respected Legislature of British Columbia, when you decide what the principles are that will guide you in your referendum — no more or less — to incorporate respect into our legal and historic rights, as they are set out in the Delgamuukw decision.

We do not support a referendum of any kind to decide on any question about our rights. To ask the majority of British Columbians to decide on an established constitution of aboriginal rights would be morally wrong. Delgamuukw is a law, and there are recognized rights set out there protected by the constitution. Any referendum that displaces or changes these legal rights would be tantamount to cultural genocide.

We are going to seek international monitoring of our rights as aboriginal peoples, because it is a critical aspect that infringes on our rights as aboriginal peoples. We will never agree to a process which extinguishes our Secwepemc title in exchange for unlimited treaty rights. Extinguishment of our title and rights and the alienation of our lands and resources maintain the status quo — the Secwepemc being the poorest people in one of the richest countries in the world.

We urge the British Columbia government to respect Secwepemc peoples and to respect our legal and historic right to our Secwepemc title lands. We urge you to begin the process of recognition and reconciliation of our title and rights in a just and honourable way. Only then can we truly co-exist in peace and harmony.

Thank you for presenting your brief in writing as well as orally. We very much appreciate that. Thank you for coming this evening.

R. Henderson: Good evening, panel and audience. My little presentation here won't take long. I thought about it for a short time, but it came fairly quickly.

The referendum adds insult to injury. Even after all the various forms of persecution the government and the non-aboriginals have put the aboriginals through, they are attempting to do it again through a referendum. The referendum will be asking a much-biased, non-aboriginal population what should be done with the aboriginals in a treaty. With this referendum, the government will get their information, make their treaties and make the aboriginals deal with it once again — probably to no avail, only loss.

How much more disrespect and humiliation does a government and its people think a noble race, which originally welcomed us as we first set foot here in their country, can take before they break? I know this referendum should be discontinued and a formal apology issued to the first nations immediately. That's my opinion.

A. Knight: My name is Al Knight. I would like to talk tonight about the cultural upgrade in North America from 1492 to the present.

Chairperson, members of the committee and fellow residents of this magnificent land that we are privileged to visit, tonight I wish to speak as an elder of my

nation. My people have lived in B.C. for over 100 years. I can't go home; this is my home.

Approximately five years ago I appeared before this committee to present the concept that peoples of Europe, although they did many reprehensible things, enriched the Americas. Tonight I would like to revisit this concept. All negotiations seem to be based on the concept that there were no benefits to the people of the Americas from the new people. I believe the aboriginal people received both benefit and pain from the arrival of Columbus.

Where are we headed? I hope, in the near future, all the people in this area that walk on the Mother Earth will be equal. To me, this means that we will all have equal opportunity and live at peace under a common set of rules. We will be equally and fairly taxed on our income and our assets. As long as one group perceives another as being treated differently in sharing our treasures, we will not be equal. One person will be the parent and the other the child. It is only when a person accepts full psychic and fiscal responsibility for oneself and for all fellow humans that adulthood is reached.

What is an aboriginal? We can divide the people of Canada into 3 percent aboriginals and 97 percent others. I got these figures from your background information.

For a moment, let us look at the Sioux. In 1876 they defeated Gen. George Custer at Little Bighorn. Shortly after, they crossed the border into Canada under the guidance of the Royal North West Mounted Police, because the Blood, Cree and Blackfoot would never have allowed them that far north. They were given a reserve, where they reside to this day.

I'd respectfully suggest that anyone who entered Canada before 1876 is therefore an aboriginal and should be given a reserve, if we follow this logic through. Lawyers should be able to ride this concept all the way to the Supreme Court. For our purposes, a combination of the census of Canada and definitions of status cards certainly should be satisfactory.

What was given? What was taken? In all the discussion I've read, the whole basis for settlement was based on what was taken from the aboriginal people. Tonight I would like to discuss some of the things that were taken from the peoples of America and some of the things that were given by the European and Asiatic cultures to the North American and South American aboriginal cultures.

Land. There was no doubt that the European method of land tenure resulted in reduced access to total land mass by the aboriginal people.

Some negatives. Well, no culture anywhere in the world would appreciate being given smallpox and measles or our Indian school system. We gave it, but I'm sure it was never appreciated. These did not result in any improvement in lifestyle.

Tobacco and alcohol. North Americans provided tobacco to the Europeans. Europeans provided gin and whiskey. One group provided the other with lung cancer. The other got cirrhosis of the liver. My wife, the ex-smoker, is researching lawyers to pursue a class action suit against the aboriginals for giving her a nicotine dependency. So far, she hasn't found anybody who will take the case.

The positives. I have briefly reviewed the negative aspects of the European arrival in the Americas. Let us look at some of the things that I think should be interpreted as being positive additions to the life and work of North American indigenous peoples.

The horse. The Spanish reintroduced the horse into North and South America. The aboriginal people immediately adopted the horse for travel, hunting and as a measure of wealth.

The wheel. I have read that when Columbus arrived in the Americas, there were between 15 million and 20 million people. Not one of these people had developed the wheel. The wheel, particularly the 4-by-4 version, was adopted by the aboriginal peoples because it is superior to the travois and backpack.

Iron pots. The resident culture of this land had not developed the simplest iron tools — among these, a device to cook supper in. The iron pot provided by Scottish, French, English and Spanish traders quickly replaced the woven-basket-and-hot-rocks cooking system. I think dinner might also have tasted a little better, but I'm not sure.

Steel needles and fish hooks. The European version of these day-to-day tools replaced the bone version in less than a generation.

The knife and the axe. Devices that could be sharpened and used to cut meat or carve wood easier than flint or bone were quickly adopted. When one looks at the magnificent works of Bill Reid, one credits them to his aboriginal soul and to the ironmongers of Sheffield, Toledo and Kyoto. The soul of one culture could never have been released without the tools of the other.

When one looks at the precontact totems of the Haida, the carvings are only inches deep compared to the several feet that is common now. The day-to-day use of the axe, flint or bone knife died early when challenged by the iron or steel European or Asiatic equivalents.

Infant mortality. A few years ago I had dinner at a restaurant in Kamloops. Past Kamloops Indian band Chief Manny Jules was there with many of his children, grandchildren, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. I reflected on how many of them would be alive today without the work of Pasteur, Lister and many others of European ancestry who have reduced infant mortality and extended adult life.

Recently the infant daughter of my now-deceased brother Norm Lareux, a member of the Kamloops band, was sick with jaundice. She was flown to Vancouver for successful treatment on an aircraft whose genesis flowed from European culture. The Wright brothers were not members of the ancient North American peoples.

Peace. Traditionally, many bands raided each others' territories to loot, kill and abduct slaves. The European concept of justice has stopped this tradition. No longer do the Okanagan raid the Nicola, nor the Haida the Nootka, to kill the men and select a new wife. I was chatting a while back with a friend from the Kamloops

Indian band. Her husband's grandmother had been kidnapped from this area and taken over to the Okanagan, where she became a wife and had eight wonderful children.

These are the things that have changed. The new ethic has resulted in peace and prosperity and some great dance competitions at powwows. If you want to find a new wife or a new husband, go to the powwow. That's where the best dancers are and the best people.

Housing. The evolution of the houses we know of, as used by the aboriginal people of B.C., flows from the brick residences of England, Scotland, France, Germany, etc. Our present comfortable abodes do not flow from the longhouse, kickwillie or teepee.

Energy sources. The aboriginal peoples spent much of their time gathering and cutting wood with stone tools. This method has been replaced by oil, gas and electricity delivered on demand using concepts developed by North American immigrants or their children.

Where to from here? Our solution needs to evaluate and give a price to the cultural upgrade that was provided to the indigenous North American people by the European people. I have given a few examples, and I am sure there are many more. There is a need to make the aboriginal people aware of the good things that have happened and learn from them. There are, within the aboriginal community, people who are promoting dissent rather than accommodation. They're young people under 30 who have been led to believe that they went to aboriginal schools, although the schools have been closed for over 30 years. The press prefers to repeat the horror stories without ever mentioning that this was the way many white children were treated in English schools. Never do we hear of any successful graduates of the aboriginal schools, and there were many.

It is time to talk of these positives and come to terms with the negatives. I was chatting with one of my students the other day, and she talked of her three siblings who went to the aboriginal schools and then went on to the public school system. They got on the honour roll and went through to university degrees. I don't believe they could have done that if they had suffered the kind of abuse that we continually hear about.

The never-ending process of negotiations and court actions is stultifying economic activity. There are people who are making a living out of the treaty process. For them, any resolution would be a negative. I believe the solution is to provide a degree of comfort for the individual members of the aboriginal community and to cease negotiations.

The suggested ballot presented below was developed from this philosophy and the idea that the aboriginal people are both givers and receivers. I believe that when the benefits of the cultural upgrades are factored against the value of the land, there is still a debt to pay. The ballot presented below follows that concept:

Payment. Payment will be made when 75 percent of the registered aboriginal people of B.C. over 18 agree to accept the payment and its terms. I accept that as a very high level, because we need almost total agreement.

The cost. The latest statistics available indicate that there are approximately 140,000 aboriginal persons in B.C., approximately 40 percent of whom are under the age of 18. The immediate payment to 84,000 persons would be approximately $4.5 billion, with annual payments to 3,000 persons of approximately $100 million. From figures I have seen, this is less than the cost of one year's operation of all of the programs and negotiations that seem to never end.

Mr. Chairman, I saw you on TV tonight, and you said that since this committee sat in this room five years ago, $500 million have been spent on negotiations, and nothing much has happened. A settlement will move several major projects back onto the rails and remove uncertainty from B.C.'s future.

The problems. One of the major problems is the debt that the bands have built up over the years in the negotiation process. Since the leadership speaks for the people, I am sure the individuals will be delighted to mail a cheque to their band office from their payment to cover these costs when they are asked.

I hope these words and ideas from a white-faced elder will assist us in the journey towards social and economic prosperity and equality for all. I thank you for this opportunity to present my concept.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you. Are there any questions from panel members? Thanks for coming this evening.

A. McIntosh: Hi. I came here today just as a citizen. I hadn't written anything. Thank goodness you've adjourned early. I went home and got on my computer, but I didn't write without some knowledge. I'm a Canadian citizen and a retiree and a resident of British Columbia in Kamloops since 1963. I have some understanding of constitutional matters, training in public services administration, and ran a large government department with over 300 staff for 24 years. I remain active in the community and am an appointed member of the city of Kamloops social planning council.

I worked with aboriginal people in Kamloops. I have enjoyed working with aboriginal people. We were a very good example, by the way, of an aboriginal ap-

proach to affordable housing. It was just wonderful to go there on Wednesday. I attended a seminar on affordable housing and talked to those folks to tell them the effect it has had on them to be living in the community — mostly at Brocklehurst and Sahali — and the effect that's had on them. But I digress.

I also have aboriginal ancestry. My ancestor was Scotch and, after the 1745 rebellion, came to North America and married into the Upper Creek Indians of Georgia. He sold Georgia to the federal government of the United States for $450,000.

A. McIntosh: Well, it was a good deal at that time; it was a lot of money. I'm sorry I can't help you today by offering you the same deal in British Columbia.

I'm here tonight on my own behalf and because of my concern for the future of this great province and country. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I have waded through a large part of the Nisga'a treaty and some of the Hansard Blues on your committee's website, so I know that the matter of whether or not there should be treaty negotiations is not up for question. I believe B.C. was right, though, when they did not agree to treaties as part of the Terms of Union. I think it's a mistake. After I look at the Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision and after looking at the Nisga'a treaty, I'm more convinced than ever that going the non-treaty route was the correct decision. I don't think treaties solved anything in the rest of Canada. If you look at what's happening in Burnt Church and so on, what does their treaty mean? It just means a revisiting and a revisiting. When something doesn't work out right, you're back at it again.

I particularly resent, by the way, being told this afternoon that I'm an inconsiderate guest in this country. I just happen to pay all my old age security and my Canada pension plan in taxes every year. When somebody tells me they held out their hand to me, I figure somebody's still holding out their hand to me, and I'm paying all this money over the counter. I've got some concerns when somebody tells me that, when I've contributed to this country as much as anybody else.

In any case, the following are the nature of questions I'd like in a referendum. I've been at the bargaining table, and I'm an old negotiator. I don't think you're going to get anything from being nice, quite frankly. You've got to have answers that will make people sit up and take notice, particularly the federal government.

I'll give examples. Do you believe that the end product of any treaty negotiation should be final and binding on all parties? As a result of these negotiations, should all the people of B.C. be governed under the same laws, statutes and status, including taxes? Should the negotiations be time-limited? Should any Crown land be given as part of these negotiations? Should the money that has already been paid to natives since the introduction of the Indian Act be included in computing the cost of any settlement? By that I mean including interest. Should the negotiators be characterized as treaties between nations? That gives us a very specific problem. Once you've concluded a treaty between nations, you've heard already tonight what that can do. That's already set something in stone because you've said: "That's a nation, this is a nation, and we've concluded a treaty." As you know from treaties, they're going to come back again to say: "Well, that was a treaty then. We need another treaty because we have another problem."

G. Babister: My name is Gary Babister. I'm a citizen of Kamloops. It's my opinion that there's no resolution to the treaty process given the number of government and native parties involved throughout B.C. and Canada. I believe parties should consider a lump sum payout by the federal and provincial governments to each and every native in Canada.

In order to do this, the moneys would have to be amortized over a specific period — say 15 years. This is to allow governments time to write off this huge onetime payment. The amount would have to be negotiated between the governments and the native leaders across the country.

For example, should the amount be $300,000 each, the payment could be made in lump sums or paid to each native in incremental payments over a 15-year term. Children would be eligible, but no money would be paid until they reached 19 years of age, with the options as stated above.

Once the 15-year period has expired, each native and all native communities would then be considered as Canadian only and afforded all rights that are available to every Canadian. No native reserves would be allowed. All land, buildings and businesses would continue as though part of any other community or district of each province.

Obviously, to do this, the approval of all natives would be paramount. A vote would likely have to occur across the country to have all parties agree to such a radical change. Native bands would have to identify all their known population prior to the change taking place. A specific date would have to be determined to qualify all natives who would benefit from such a program. Questions of fishing, lumber, mining rights, etc., would have to be negotiated so that all parties are comfortable with the decisions.

This suggestion is meant to bring all natives on an equal footing with all other Canadians and allow them the financial opportunity to reap all benefits that all Canadians enjoy. I would hope that all native customs and beliefs would flourish even after such a change. Canada enjoys many benefits from our native history, as it should in the future.

My name is Carole Gillis. I'm a citizen of Kamloops. I debated whether I would speak to this committee. I'm deeply ambivalent about whether I'll vote in the referendum at all, because I feel very strongly that this referendum is unnecessarily divisive and inflammatory and an entirely inappropriate way to settle minority rights.

I think that in a country like Canada that is held up to the world as an example of a multicultural, pluralistic society, to let the majority determine rights for minorities is entirely inappropriate anywhere — especially in a country like Canada that prides itself on the kinds of values that we do.

I think that in establishing the principles that exist already for treaty negotiations, there was significant input allowed. Public hearings were held throughout the province at the time, and the principles that have been determined are entirely appropriate. To have a referendum that inflames issues that are already for many people very personal and very heartfelt and that is impossible, especially for first nations people, not to interpret personally when comments are made will do nothing to improve relations between first nations and non–first nations communities and individuals.

The existing principles are perfectly functional, and the process is already painfully slow, as it is conducted by experts. There has been public input already. The natural resultant hard feelings that will come from the referendum itself will only slow the process further. I think that we have all witnessed the impact of the slowness of negotiations in terms of their economic impact and also in terms of the relationships between communities, and I think anything that further delays treaty negotiations not only is inappropriate in terms of cultural communication and relationships but also has a negative economic impact.

I would urge you to abandon the referendum. There has been public input on the principles. I think that instead, we should be working towards more positive relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities, recognizing historic injustice, recognizing the cultural value of first nations communities for all of us and working towards some kind of resolution that may in fact not be permanent and binding but recognize that recognition of first nations sovereignty will mean ongoing relationships and ongoing negotiations. That is, perhaps, not necessarily an unattractive reality.

J. Les (Chair): You talked about the principles as they currently exist and the opportunity you had to have input into what those principles are. When do you feel that input opportunity was provided to you?

C. Gillis: My understanding is — and I didn't participate at that time — that there were public hearings throughout the province in the late eighties and early nineties for the principles behind treaty negotiations.

J. Les (Chair): I think it was 1990 when the then-government of British Columbia decided to enter the treaty process for the first time. It wasn't until 1993, I believe, that the principles and MOUs and other things were decided. In any event, it's perhaps a somewhat irrelevant point at this point.

C. Gillis: The dates maybe are irrelevant, but it is my clear understanding that there was an opportunity at that time for public input.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Now, you've admitted — and many people have presented to us over the last month — that the existing process is very, very slow. We believe — and we've certainly heard this — that's causing a lot of people to be very, very frustrated with the process as it has been unfolding.

J. Les (Chair): No, no. You didn't say that, but many people have, and you commented that the process was in fact very, very slow. Don't you think that we need to find a way to improve and invigorate the process so that we can start delivering results?

C. Gillis: I would argue that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. If doing it properly means doing it slowly, then so be it. More important than expediting the process is making sure that treaties that are settled are suitable for local communities, for first nations communities and for the province at large. That may well be a time-consuming process.

J. Les (Chair): In spite of the fact that certain first nations have loans outstanding now of millions of dollars to cover the cost of treaty negotiations so far and that some are now concerned that those loans may in fact be of greater value than what they eventually will achieve out of the treaty-making process?

C. Gillis: I think that the costs involved in the treaty-making process are costs that all British Columbians recognize will eventually be repaid by having a process and by ultimately having treaties that are tenable for first nations people and for British Columbians. Those monetary costs may not in some respects be

J. Les (Chair): They are very real for the first nations that are currently involved in the process.

C. Gillis: Yeah, they're measurable in that respect, but in terms of benefits.

J. Les (Chair): Starting your presentation this evening you talked about how inappropriate it was for the majority to decide minority rights. I do want to sort of go back and discuss that with you. This is not about minority rights. We have said clearly from the start that we recognize section 35 of the constitution and the aboriginal rights that are recognized and affirmed. We recognize that there is a requirement to negotiate treaties. We've said that very clearly and consistently all along. This process is about establishing the guiding principles that will inform the treaty-making process. In other words, it is not about what we are going to do; it is about how we are going to do it.

C. Gillis: Perhaps, then, it would be appropriate that you be guided and that your guiding principles be the very sections of the Charter that you purport to uphold.

M. Hunter: I did want to comment, Mr. Chairman, and I was going to ask Carole the same question you did about the significant input last time.

Carole, my recollection of that time is that you are right. There were some hearings at a time when the government of British Columbia had no experience under its belt in the treaty negotiation process.

You said, I think, in respect to that, that you felt that those existing principles were functional. I guess the difficulty I had, as someone who's been fairly close to this through my previous life before I got into politics…. I'm a little confused about the principles myself. There is that set of principles announced in 1991. There is a set of principles — I think there are 18 or 19 of them — that the last government was operating under. If I'm confused, I'm sure lots of other people are. I did want to comment on that. I appreciate your point of view. I think it's one that I would like to take into account in terms of looking at the principles.

I would also like to ask you another question that came out of an answer you gave to the Chairman. You said that treaties need to be suitable for local communities. Do you feel that the principles that you understand are in place now are accomplishing that need?

M. Hunter: I was thinking of the process of the regional advisory committees and the treaty…. You feel they're adequate to cover local community input. Okay, thank you.

The final presenter that I have on the speakers list this evening is Duncan Barnett from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association.

D. Barnett: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and committee members. The last one of a long day, I'm sure.

D. Barnett: My name is Duncan Barnett, and I am representing the B.C. Cattlemen's Association tonight. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association believes the provincial government's referendum initiative provides a much-needed opportunity for all British Columbians to discuss, debate, inform and educate themselves about an issue of tremendous importance: the resolution of aboriginal claims through treaty negotiations.

Our purpose in appearing before the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is to inform you of the views of our members on this issue, with the objective of contributing to the discussion and debate that will shape the questions. Our goal is to ensure that the public, especially the urban public — detached as they are from the rural and resource economy of this province — are informed and educated before answering questions that will shape the future of British Columbia.

In my presentation tonight I will introduce you to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the cattle industry. Then I will review the existing provincial approach to treaty negotiations with respect to lands and resources and to compensation for displaced third-party interests. My remarks are based on the paper you have, prepared by the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, entitled Interests in the Treaty Land Selection Process. I'm just looking to see that you do all have it. I will put forward the B.C. Cattlemen's suggested approach to treaty negotiations, outline our vision and principles for treaty negotiations and propose some possible themes for referendum questions.

Returning to our association, the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association — or BCCA, as I will abbreviate it — has been the official voice of ranchers throughout B.C. since 1929. Although times have changed over

the years since its incorporation, the BCCA's direction remains the same: to maintain and strengthen the sustainability of the B.C. beef industry. In the 140 years since the gold rush days, beef cattle production in British Columbia has grown to become an important part of agriculture in the province. Farm cash receipts for cattle and calves were $327 million in the year 2000. Dairy cattle make up about 30 percent of this figure. An estimated 250,000 head of beef cattle and calves worth more than $225 million were sold in 2000. Beef production represents approximately 15 percent of B.C.'s $1.9 billion agricultural industry. The cattle industry provides an overall benefit of $750 million annually to B.C.'s economy.

Cattle producers collectively own a significant amount of the fee simple land within the province. Most of the deeded land is used to produce forage to sustain the cow herd over the winter months. Producers are dependent on assured access to Crown lands for seasonal grazing. Security of tenures, leases, licences and permits over Crown land is critical to the continued viability of the industry. Access to water for livestock and crop production is equally important. In this regard, ranchers are part of a larger resource-user group — the rural economy — that requires tenure security in order to continue operating the economic engines of this province.

Our perspective on aboriginal claims. Our members recognize and support the need for settlement of outstanding issues concerning aboriginal rights and title. Our members do not dispute the legal, social and economic reasons for treaty-making in British Columbia. They also appreciate the monumental difficulty of trying to resolve more than century-old grievances in a modern context. It is fair to say that the ranching community has not really engaged in the treaty-making process. They generally have not had an opportunity. Most bands in the interior have chosen not to participate in the B.C. treaty process. Treaty 8 already exists in the northeast part of the province, although it has not provided much resolution or certainty.

Ranchers also have not engaged, because they feel threatened or challenged by the B.C. treaty process with its focus on land and resources. For many ranches located adjacent to Indian reserves, claims are directed at the current owners. It is difficult for BCCA members to participate in treaty negotiations and explain their interests without feeling and sounding defensive. Ranchers believe they have little to gain from treaty settlements and a great deal to lose.

Our response to B.C.'s approach to treaty settlements, land and resources. While ranchers share the interests of other British Columbians concerning negotiation principles that address general social, economic and environmental matters, the focus of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association is on government's approach to lands and resources. We know the new provincial government has made some comforting statements concerning protection of private property and compensation for private interests on Crown land. However, in critiquing B.C.'s approach, we consider these statements as extensions of the previous mandate, which still exists. B.C.'s June 1996 paper entitled British Columbia's Approach to Treaty Settlements: Lands and Resources appears on the surface to address many of the issues of our members. However, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is lacking.

We believe that the approach outlined goes too far in the direction of social engineering and not far enough in the direction of coexistence and economic development. Members do not support many of the principles implied or stated in this document. The B.C. Cattlemen's Association finds that while the province's approach will certainly accomplish the transfer of lands and resources to aboriginal people, it misses the point of a treaty — that being to plan for a shared future. The approach follows a failed treaty model focused on how to live apart rather than how to live together. It continues to put money into an Indian reserve–type system that, according to the observation of our members, does not work.

Our members believe that there will be more certainty in learning to exist together than in trying to define separate rights-based societies. We note that government's representation of the public at the treaty table has been a further barrier to communities determining how to live together.

B.C. takes a rights-based approach to lands and resources as follows. I quote from the June 1996 paper:

Our members have several problems with this approach. The courts use a snapshot in time as a criterion to decide aboriginal rights, including title; that's 1846 or contact with Europeans. These rights then form the basis for negotiations. The problem is that the manner of exercising rights is allowed to evolve — i.e., the resources harvested and the methods used — but the right itself does not evolve. All over the world, rights evolve and change. This has certainly been the case with rights held by ranchers. Why not aboriginal rights? For example, why can't communally held aboriginal rights evolve to be individually held?

The second problem is that this rights-based approach lends itself to a struggle over the wealth and power that accompany the rights. Thus, aboriginal groups use case law to argue for the expansion of aboriginal rights. The federal and provincial governments argue back over the limits of aboriginal rights or con-

template legislation for the same purpose. Lacking the foundation of a shared vision, a settlement may be possible, but reconciliation is probably not.

Third, from a landowner and resource-user perspective, exchanging undefined aboriginal rights for defined treaty rights which exist off settlement land is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Our members expect that the exercise of treaty rights to fish, hunt, gather and participate in land use planning off treaty settlement land will create the same conflicts for ranchers as aboriginal rights presently create. Constitutionally protected treaty rights still trump a licence granted under provincial legislation. Practical certainty, which comes from an incentive to coexist, will be lacking. That is the contemporary reality.

In 1993 British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding with the federal government respecting the sharing of pre-treaty costs, settlement costs, implementation costs and the cost of self-government. In broad terms the agreement says that Canada and B.C. will split the cost of settlement 50-50. The cost of the treaty process at that time was thought to be between $5 billion and $10 billion. Both governments contemplated then, and still do, that land settlements will be primarily derived from provincial Crown land. This agreement and the assumptions underlying it must be carefully reviewed when it comes up for renewal in June 2002. Provincial policy says that treaty settlement lands overall will average no more than 5 percent of the provincial land base or, alternatively, the total area of land held by first nations will be proportional to their population. The interpretation is more land in rural B.C. and less in the urban areas, for a provincial average of 5 percent. When the rock and ice is excluded, the impact on the Crown lands utilized by BCCA members will be much greater than 5 percent. Unlike other tenure holders under the Forest Act — major forest licensees — ranchers' tenures are tied to a specific land base. The selection of treaty settlement lands, therefore, has the potential to have a devastating impact on individual ranches and the families they support.

With respect to private interests on Crown land such as leases, licences and other tenures, B.C.'s approach is as follows:

While the statements in the approach outlined above should provide some reassurance to our members, concern arises when one considers how such an approach will be implemented. The comfort becomes rather hollow. Our members cannot see how the mechanisms to avoid displacement will apply to our industry or where the opportunities for expansion and diversification lie. There are no relevant successful examples to rely on. Given their experience, ranchers regard these commitments as uninformed and unrealistic.

Governments are supposed to represent the interests of all Canadians or, in your case, British Columbians. It is not in our members' interests to see our existing means of providing for our families taken away without full compensation. If treaties are going to be settled with land and resources, then governments must establish a policy for fair and timely compensation for ranchers adversely impacted by treaty settlements. The policy must have more substance than a simple commitment. The absence of a clear policy and process undermines support for treaty negotiations amongst cattle producers.

The BCCA firmly believes that a reallocation of land and resources is a simplistic and ineffective approach to the plight of B.C.'s Indian people and that to reallocate land and resources without compensating those who now have rights to them is profoundly wrong. The settlement of treaties without displacement of our members is the objective of the BCCA, something we share with other resource users and rural British Columbians.

Our paper, the green bound one, provides a detailed look at the impacts of the current approach on our members. We go on to suggest several ways to mitigate the impacts, but please note that our preference is to change the overall approach.

I will turn to our approach. The paper I've given you describes several options for treaty settlement that fall outside current government policy. When combined, several options can be classified as alternatives to the B.C. treaty process. Others are suggestions that would avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on third parties under the current treaty process by making some fundamental changes to government policy regarding Crown lands. We believe that further investigation and consideration of these options is required.

One of our most controversial recommendations is that treaties be settled primarily with cash. In our paper we attempt to explain this often misunderstood recommendation. I will offer a few considerations here.

We are told that an important purpose of treaty negotiations is to resolve land claims, and thus negotiations are said to be about land. With respect, we suggest that the B.C. treaty negotiations are about process and make self-government the fundamental issue. The B.C. treaty process requires groups of aboriginal people to agree on a collective and comprehensive vision, a difficult thing for any group to do, in order to move forward at the treaty table. As a result, developing and

agreeing on a collective vision becomes a barrier to the negotiating table. Implementing the collective vision — in other words, governance — becomes the focus of negotiations.

Land, resources and cash are simply tools to fund self-government. This is not to say that land, resources and cash should not be part of treaty settlements, but they are not the solution, just as subsidy and economic development programs have not created sustainable communities.

Individual choice combined with education, strategic thinking and application are the keys to moving away from dependence on government programs towards true economic and social development and success in the modern economy. Treaty settlements providing collectively held assets and pervasive government, making individual choice less possible, may not establish strong and self-reliant aboriginal communities.

While aboriginal leaders call for self-government over large amounts of land and resources, it may be that individual aboriginal people are not so attached to self-government. Given the ability to make individual choices, they may prefer the flexibility and opportunity provided by cash settlements. In post-Delgamuukw British Columbia we wonder why a simple, primarily cash compensation package cannot be negotiated as an alternative to or part of a treaty.

We note that compensation is a last resort for ranchers, their preference being to avoid displacement resulting from treaty settlements, but some aboriginal people have already been displaced. Why not simply compensate them and let them get on with their lives? The question is how to determine the amount of money and how to implement a settlement.

We do want to point out that if an approach to settling aboriginal claims primarily with cash were adopted, there would be no necessity for government involvement in establishing compensation for displaced private interests on Crown land. The marketplace would provide the answer. Cash is an established and acceptable mechanism to facilitate the acquisition of interest in lands or resources by aboriginal communities or individual aboriginal people.

To summarize the contents of our 52-page written submission, we advocate an entirely different and much simpler approach to treaty negotiation. There are four points:

1. Compensate legitimate aboriginal claims to land and resources primarily with cash.

2. Establish reasonable parameters around aboriginal rights through legislation and regulation.

4. Negotiate working arrangements similar to existing pre-treaty measures on remaining outstanding issues.

If our approach is deemed unacceptable and the present approach is pursued, including the land selection model, we believe much clarification is needed regarding the size and status of treaty settlement lands and the implications for private interest on Crown land.

Our vision for British Columbia. As we presently see it, visions for post-treaty British Columbia are very different at best and entirely lacking at worst. Government's vision has been to achieve certainty by exchanging undefined aboriginal rights for defined treaty rights. For first nations the vision appears to be akin to government-to-government relationships and comanagement, if not ownership, over their traditional territories. For the average British Columbian, we suggest, the vision is more focused on social, economic and political equality. This would also include equality under the law to the extent that it can exist under the Constitution Act, 1982.

We appreciate the efforts the provincial government is making to develop a vision that all British Columbians can be a part of. We expect that residents of B.C. will want a vision that is inclusive, that reflects their values and that has social, economic and environmental elements. The social elements of the vision will include quality-of-life matters such as safe, secure and stable communities, access to affordable health care and education, recognition of aboriginal culture and heritage, social and political equality, freedom and responsible individual choice.

The economic element of the vision addresses what B.C.'s economy will have to produce to support the desired quality of life — items such as equal economic opportunity for all residents; healthy and competitive nature resource industries; a diverse, strong and vibrant economy; and sufficient government revenues to support public services.

The environmental element of the vision describes the foundation for the economic production that supports the desired quality of life. These are the basics — such as a healthy, sustainable environment; properly functioning ecosystems; clean air and water; access to natural areas; and well-managed development areas.

Our members would endorse such a vision and would hope that British Columbia can develop a vision for treaty negotiations that includes a viable beef cattle industry. BCCA members believe that the settlement of claims to lands and resources should ensure aboriginal people have a home, a cultural base and the opportunity to continue to live in a traditional way if they choose, but not so much property that they can forever be our landlords. Ownership of lands and resources should be in proportion to that of other British Columbians. Many Indian people are friends and neighbours, some involved in cattle ranching. BCCA members hope to see treaties negotiated which will make Indian people better off both socially and economically, and which will leave us in business living and working harmoniously with all of our neighbours.

We have some principles to guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations. In our work within the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, we have identified five principles to guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations, at least with respect to our interests:

1. The settlements must maintain the viability of the beef cattle industry in British Columbia.

2. Settlements must result in no net loss of access to Crown grazing and water resources for the ranching industry.

3. Settlement must be accomplished without adversely impacting BCCA members more than any other segment of Canadian society.

4. Compensation for lands and resources lost as a result of settlement is a last resort.

5. Settlements are not acceptable until compensation is settled for each entitled individual.

Turning to questions for British Columbians, we believe it is a good idea to give all British Columbians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations. However, for three reasons we suggest that a one-time provincewide referendum may not provide the complete answer.

First, we have learned that negotiations will take some time. The legal framework around negotiations may change. The process is iterative. It may be desirable to solicit input from the public more than once. It is also difficult to convey the intricacies of a subject through a written question and answer where no opportunity for dialogue and discussion exists.

Second, circumstances around the province vary greatly, including resources available for settlement, business opportunities and ambitions of aboriginal people. Perspectives on treaty settlements may be different from one region to another. It is possible that provincial views may overshadow regional solutions. We note that there may be some questions best directed only to the aboriginal population. For example, what do the large number of aboriginal people, some 40 to 50 percent who live off reserve, think about desired outcomes of treaty negotiations?

Third, the word "referendum" implies that government will be bound by the results. This is only useful if government puts a proposal forward. If the purpose is to solicit public input, it is possible that government may find itself unable to deliver the desired result or having to deliver a result not desired. For this exercise to be successful, we suggest government put forth a comprehensive vision containing the social, economic and environmental elements mentioned. Voters should be asked to refine and endorse the vision. Principles that guide our approach to achieving the vision should then be set out for voters to approve through a series of questions.

Questions will need to be sufficiently broad, and note that we say "questions" — plural. No single question can provide the basis for a set of principles. The resultant principles must be enabling and not prescriptive or limiting. Questions could gauge the degree of support for various principles through standard responses such as: agree or disagree. Voters could be offered multiple-choice answers to determine the range of acceptable options. A brief factual backgrounder should precede each question to ensure the voter has the basic information necessary to make an informed decision.

To help the select standing committee develop questions for British Columbians to answer, we offer the following question themes. Questions are divided into two categories: those directed towards our preferred approach to resolving aboriginal claims and those directed towards improving the existing approach to treaty negotiations.

Turning firstly to the questions regarding our preferred approach. There was an error here, you'll note. There's a word crossed out — my apologies. Should British Columbia's primary currency for treaty settlements be lands and resources or cash? Should treaties be based on the definition of constitutional and legal rights or on the attainment of social, economic and political equality for all British Columbians? Should the governments of British Columbia and Canada develop legislation and regulations that define aboriginal rights enshrined in the Canadian constitution?

Turning to questions regarding the existing approach. Should land owned by aboriginal people or communities be different from private fee simple land with respect to matters such as environmental standards, expropriation and public access? Should jurisdiction over provincial Crown land remain with the provincial government regardless of ownership by aboriginal groups?

Given that private land comprises 5 percent of the provincial land base, should the amount of provincial Crown land transferred through treaties to the 3.7 percent of the provincial population who are aboriginal people be in proportion to the 5 percent of the land base held privately and in fee simple or in proportion to the total land base of the province? Should private interests on Crown land be compensated for displacement resulting from treaty negotiations on the basis of a provincial policy for fair and timely compensation? Do you support pre-treaty or interim measures and similar working arrangements as the means to provide incremental certainty? Do you support a greater role for local expertise in treaty negotiations?

In conclusion, I will say that the task of trying to distil the hopes and dreams, issues and concerns of B.C. Cattlemen's Association members into simple questions is difficult, if not impossible. We trust that the submission of our interest paper will make up for any shortcomings in this regard. We hope that a vision for a post-treaty British Columbia can be created that includes a healthy, strong, viable ranching industry and an approach to treaty negotiations developed that achieves this vision. I thank you for your attention, and I would welcome any questions.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Duncan, for that presentation. Without denigrating the presentation of anyone else that we've heard over the last three or four weeks, I must commend you on the clarity and completeness of your presentation. It's obvious that somebody has spent a considerable amount of time putting it together. There's lots of food for thought in particular in this document here, which I'm sure all of us will take some time to study in detail.

M. Hunter: Duncan, I want to echo the Chairman's remarks. I really was impressed by the thought you've put into this. I'm sure I have lots more questions other than what I can dream up while we have time for it tonight.

I understand you're questioning the existing approach, but in the questions that you are proposing to us on the existing approach — the issue of supporting pre-treaty interim measures as a means of providing incremental certainty — can you tell me what your current views on that issue are? We've heard a number of different concerns regarding incentives to conclude versus lack of incentives. Where do you see that issue falling out if the existing approach were to survive into the next five or six years?

D. Barnett: I believe that our members in most resource interests have had concerns about interim measures or treaty-related measures or pre-treaty measures, as they've been called, since they were first around. They were perceived as land protection measures with no defined time frame, no quid pro quo and not necessarily of any real benefit. I think everyone should be aware that that has changed considerably in recent months. The interim measures or the pre-treaty measures that the minister talks about for achieving incremental certainty, I think, are well worth looking at. This concept is somewhat new in that we're now looking at them from a business-case perspective, and a quid pro quo is involved. I think we have to go back and take a close look at what exactly they might be.

I will go out on a limb a bit and say that I believe that's an approach that our members would support. We know that the process has been going on a long time. We haven't had great results yet. There are a lot of communities or bands or groups that are not in the treaty process. Incremental certainty might be a way to address some of the issues for groups that aren't in the treaty process, and it might be a way to get things moving for those that are.

One of the points we made is that there's too much process around treaty negotiations. I think incremental certainty and the kind of measures that could go along with it are a way to get that moving. If our interests were addressed, I believe we would support that kind of an approach. When I say our interests, I think they're spelled out in the paper. The same concerns about displacement and time frames, all of those things, are there. As I understand it, those are things that would be considered in the incremental certainty approach.

You talk about the famous or infamous cost-sharing agreement, depending on whether you come from Ottawa or Victoria, I guess. Your comment on it, Duncan, hints that it must be carefully reviewed. As part of the process, do you think that needs renegotiation or a relook by British Columbia?

D. Barnett: That's a difficult one. I think it does, but I know that you will be going into negotiations with Canada, who has some very strong views on the matter as well. Renegotiating it won't be an easy task.

The point we want to make about that agreement is that it sets the tone for this focus on lands and resources. We think there are some underlying assumptions made there that need to be questioned.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Duncan. On the questions that you've posed, it brings me back to some of the issues that have been brought up by other groups. They are very thoughtful questions. From our point of view, we have to wrestle with how we do our task hoping that people understand the issues. We've heard that some people don't have much knowledge about it. We've heard those who say there's been more than enough consultation on the whole issue.

You know that I come from the coast, and we've had agreements-in-principle signed off. Then, when it has been taken to the vote to the various bands and nations, they've been turned down. I think all of them have been turned down. We haven't got an agreement yet from those that are in the treaty process. My understanding is that the reason those AIPs were turned down by the membership was that they didn't have enough knowledge about what had been negotiated.

What I'm getting to is: how do you see us getting the information out and making sure that people do understand the issues? From your perspective and from the group that you come from, there are some very complicated issues. As we've gone around the province, we know that from Vancouver there are completely different issues. The people in Vancouver and the urban areas, you say, really don't understand the issues out in the rural areas. We have had particular individuals from the aboriginal community coming forward with some of their very specific concerns of their own position in the aboriginal community.

We're dealing with a huge issue of information or trying to get an understanding of this whole issue. Have you got any thoughts on the whole issue of informing everyone of these issues that we have to be able to put together and somehow coming up with some clarity on the whole process?

D. Barnett: I do have some thoughts. I think you've really hit on one of the toughest parts of this whole business of negotiating treaties. When I first got involved, I thought: "Oh, this is really quite simple. We just need to do this, that and the other." Then you realize that it's far more complicated than that. There is no one answer.

I often look at it like when I'm moving my cattle. I have an end destination in mind, and I have a plan to get there, but quite often we take a different route. As long as we still arrive at the destination, I'm okay with that. I think that's kind of how the treaty negotiations are going to be. That's why I say focus on the vision

In terms of getting people involved, I think that has to happen at a local level. People generally don't get involved until something touches them either personally or in the pocketbook. You can accomplish either of those if you take the negotiations down to more of a local level. I'm not saying that negotiations should be taken away from the province and Canada and handled entirely by local governments, for example, or third parties. That wouldn't work, but there are some aspects — for example, just the community relationships and the day-to-day getting along — that are really best resolved at the local level.

If you give that task to people, I think it forces them to take an interest. Some people maybe never will. Some people may choose never to get themselves informed, but I trust that the vast majority, if given the opportunity to get involved firsthand, would. That would cause them, just as it's caused everyone else who's gotten involved in negotiations, to learn more about the issues; to go and look at what the constitution says, what some of the court cases say, what some of the federal and provincial policy papers say; to talk to some of the aboriginal people and understand their views. When you start to get that, you become informed and educated, but you need some prompting to do it. It's either, I think, a large tax notice or the opportunity to have some involvement in shaping the future at a local level. Does that help?

Again, Duncan, thank you very much for your presentation. Hopefully, we'll reserve the right to talk to you again at some point.

D. Barnett: Thank you very much. We'd be pleased to answer any questions that you might have on our paper. I know there's a lot of stuff in it.

J. Les (Chair): That concludes the speakers that had indicated they wished to make a presentation. At this point I will adjourn the hearing and thank everyone for their interest.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS