Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 15 - Friday, October 26, 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 9:13 a.m.

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

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · David Jones
    · Bill Buttuls
    · Lloyd Stock
    · Marg Lampman
    · Jenny Young
    · Don Carter

4. The Committee recessed from 10:47 a.m. to 11:01 a.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · Lawrie Shears, Lillooet Chamber of Commerce
    · Elinor Warner, PIX (Pavilion, In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, Xaxli'p) Treaty Advisory Committee
    · Roger Adolph
    · Don Angus

6. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 12:42 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		467
	D. Jones	467
	B. Buttuls	470
	L. Stock	472
	M. Lampman	475
	J. Young	476
	D. Carter	477
	L. Shears	478
	E. Warner	480
	R. Adolph	485
	D. Angus	488

	* 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:	Roger Adolph (Tmicwus) Don Angus Bill Buttuls Don Carter David Jones Marg Lampman Lawrie Shears (Lillooet Chamber of Commerce) Lloyd Stock Elinor Warner (Mayor, Village of Pemberton; Chair, PIX Treaty Advisory Committee) Jenny Young

J. Les (Chair): Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here in Lillooet this morning. My name is John Les. I'm the chair of this committee, which is the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I represent the riding of Chilliwack-Sumas.

Before we carry on with the other introductions, what I'll do is give you a very brief outline of what our purpose is this morning. Back in August the select standing committee was appointed by the Legislature. Our instructions were to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to all 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 guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum, while ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are protected and respected.

The terms of reference and other information about the process are available at the information table at the back of the room. We are eager to hear your views this morning. In the process, we hope to build interest and support for the treaty process. We've publicized our hearing process and a call for written submissions in advertisements throughout the province. We'll be accepting written submissions until Friday, November 2, a week from today.

We've held hearings in quite a number of communities across British Columbia. Our itinerary and the minutes of the meetings are on the B.C. government website, which you can access at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt. The hearings today are going to be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff at the table on my right. As I said, the transcripts are available on the website.

Following the public hearings, which will conclude a week from today, the committee will prepare a report of its observations and recommendations. The report will be tabled in the Legislature, or if the House is not in session, the report will be deposited with the Clerk by November 30. At that point, the document will be a public document.

I'll ask the committee members and the Clerk to introduce themselves, starting with Bill.

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

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

D. Chutter: Good morning. My name is Dave Chutter, MLA for Yale-Lillooet and proud to be the MLA for Lillooet. I live in Merritt.

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

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

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

J. Les (Chair): In particular, I'd like to welcome the mayor of Lillooet, Kevin Taylor. Good to see you here.

If there's anyone else here who would like to make a presentation later, who hasn't registered yet, if you could let Dorothy know at the back of the room, she'd be happy to make sure that you get on to the speakers list.

D. Jones: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here this morning. I'm glad you came to a community that has a native population of about 40 percent.

For other people, perhaps — not for me — it would be somewhat difficult for somebody to make recommendations to this process if you've not been involved in it. Fortunately, I've been involved in it since it came to Lillooet. I've been on the RAC. I have tried to make the process work, but it's a two-way street. You can't force somebody to do something they're not willing to do. I have a sinking feeling that the aboriginal population doesn't seem to be prepared to finalize, in many cases, what they've already done. Part of that finalization is…. The federal government is responsible for natives, and they don't seem to have that extra push to get this done. I realize it's partly a provincial responsibility, but my interpretation of the provincial responsibility is that the natives, as a body, have less respect for the provincial government than they do for the federal government. That's my interpretation.

What you wanted to talk about was process more than anything else. I have a couple of ideas here that perhaps might help the process on its way. One is governance, which obviously the provincial government is responsible for. There should be a format laid out by somebody that says: "If your population of a band is this much, your maximum governance is this much." I don't think it should be anything in excess of a municipal style of government. That's my personal opinion. Going through this process, you start from square one at each treaty negotiation, and you go through the whole dance. This is spending a lot of money on legal advice, time, personnel and soul-searching on the part of both sides. I don't think that's time well spent, to be

quite honest with you. I really don't. There are other issues that obviously you can spend more time on.

That's something that I feel you're going to have to wrestle with. I guess the land is the other big question. It'll be part of the settlement. It's been a dispute from day one. I don't know whether we'll ever get that truly resolved, unless somebody is willing to resolve the first one. You have some all ready to sign, but they won't sign, because they sit in abeyance for the simple reason they are looking and saying: "Well, maybe the band down the road will get a little more, and we won't sign and then we can add it on."

Can you get that closure? I don't know, because it isn't working now. You're going to have to find some way to make it work. At some point down the road, maybe five or ten years from now, somebody will legislate an end to this excitement. I'm thoroughly convinced they will. There's no doubt in my mind.

What else? Process. In a just society are we all equal? I don't think so. It would appear you have one set of rules for one individual and another set for a different. I know in many cases you have no control over that, but the public is looking out there and saying: "You can't do that. Unless everybody is on the same level, it won't work."

Back to the process again. I have a problem with treaty-related measures or temporary measures that are set out there to make the process work. If it made it work, we'd have something signed by now. It isn't working; they are not signed. My question is: why are we doing it? If you set a piece of land aside and say: "Look; we're going to set this aside, hold it in abeyance…." I'm thinking of one particular exercise in Lillooet where they took a big chunk of land that the local mill had decided they'd done all the process on. It was ready to operate. We'd like to go in and do it. They said: "No, we're going to hold it up. We're going to put a temporary order on it so that it can sit there for a while." That was two years ago. Nothing has happened. All bands in the Lillooet area are now out of the treaty talks.

I know of at least one band that spent over $1 million on this exercise, and when they went to a vote, they said: "No, we don't want to continue."

Why are we doing this exercise? We don't seem to have any control over it at all. I realize it's up to them to settle too. How long do we spend these dollars in what appears to be a fruitless exercise?

I guess that's in the process part of things. Those are the only two items that I really felt strongly about. I think we had a problem when we started, and this is — I'm speaking from experience now — that when the negotiators came in, most of them were from other areas. They didn't understand the community. They didn't understand what the local situation is. It took us a year and a half to educate them, and that was more to familiarize them with the area — what goes on, what happens and how the local area survives. Then you can get down to something realistic.

That part of the process was an exercise and a benefit to everybody, because they explained where they were at. It's still long and drawn-out. Not a waste of time, but at the end, when you don't accomplish anything, you think it is a waste of time.

J. Les (Chair): Certainly. Thank you, David. Do I hear you saying that to date nothing — absolutely nothing — has been accomplished?

D. Jones: Well, to get something accomplished, you must have an end result, and I don't see an end result. When the line is signed, when you sign a contract, the contract is in force. It's valid, and here it is. When it's not signed, it's a piece of paper hanging on the wall, to be quite blunt with you. It doesn't mean anything other than: "Yes, we went through the dance." It's still hanging on the wall. Until that piece of paper is signed and the thing is finished…. Then you know where you're at.

I'll be blunt and say that you have a treaty sitting at Sechelt. It's all finished, but nobody wants to sign it off. You spent a lot of time and a lot of money to get to this place, but what was the point of being at this place if it isn't done? That's my question.

D. Jones: I'm sure there are wiser men than me. If I had the solution, I probably would have imparted it to somebody by now. As backward as it might seem, perhaps we have to say: "When we get to this stage, are we going to sign it? If not, why are we going there?" Or put a time limit or something on it, which says: "Yes, we have to sign these things." Or at some point — I mentioned this earlier — somebody will legislate an end to the process. It's not only B.C. that has roadblocks. They have fish problems in the east. They have roadblocks and disruptions in the prairies. At some point — I hate to use this term, and the dynamics are changing every year — the majority of the population will say: "Enough is enough." You know it and I know it.

The native population goes to Vancouver, and they see the dynamics of the population changing. I use this whether they are third-generation Canadians of Indian descent — from India — or they came in yesterday. There are Chinese that have been here since year one. These dynamics are all changing. As we sit here today, I don't expect to see the same dynamics sitting on the other side of the table 40 years from now.

J. Les (Chair): You mentioned in passing, almost, the role of the federal government. Could you elaborate a little bit on what their commitment is?

D. Jones: They don't appear to have the will to finalize it. If I may be so bold as to go back to 1956 or '57, there was a treaty worked out at that time between the first nations and the federal government. They were ready to sign that treaty. I hate to blame somebody, but the bureaucrats killed it. If you want to do your research, you'll find that out.

If you were in the operation of looking after this vast bureaucracy that looks after the native population, you would be somewhat reluctant to get rid of your job, because it's a lifetime job. I'm not sure the politicians in Ottawa have the desire to do it. They may give outward indications, but they're not going to do it. They always have something else on their table to worry about. That's what I see from out here in B.C. I really do. They don't have that desire to finish it.

This may be a little bit unusual, but at some point you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater if you want it to grow up. We can't be forever wallowing in the problems that we created ourselves. I guess I'll have to go back a little bit on that.

When my father was here, to put it rather bluntly, all the natives looked after themselves. That's back just after the turn of the century. All of a sudden they've become more and more wards of the state. When you see the bureaucracy that's built up on the reserves that is supported by the taxpayer…. I don't have a problem with that, but they don't want to give up that sure thing for something that they don't know is going to happen. We all at some point lose our jobs and have to find another one. They don't want that to happen. That's perhaps why they're reluctant to finalize it.

D. Jones: In Ontario there was a meeting of the chiefs or whatever the group was, and the politicians and that body agreed on certain principles to end the reserve system. At that time they had bureaucrats looking after each reserve. In this case they were called Indian agents. They didn't want to lose their jobs. The accountants didn't want to lose their jobs. The bureaucracy in Ottawa at that time was huge. By their input into various people, they literally killed it. It was an agreement to end the reserve system.

G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. You're not the first person who has questioned the commitment of the federal government to the process. We've heard that. You've been involved in the RACs. Certainly I was for some considerable length of time. One of the issues that comes up all the time in the process that we're going through is whether or not the general public actually understands all the issues regarding the treaty negotiations. My view is that we should give more credit…. People do know what's going on. They may not understand the local issues, etc., compared to urban and rural areas.

At times it's difficult getting the information out to people. We've certainly heard that through the hearings. I think there has been some misunderstanding on the part of individuals making presentations as to exactly who's in charge of what, what the federal government has responsibility for and what the province has responsibility for. How do you see the RAC process has worked in getting information that you glean from your meetings back to your constituents?

D. Jones: It works only as well as the individuals who are on it are prepared to talk to the groups that they have taken under their wings, not necessarily represent. I guess you go out and talk to people. You try to explain it the best way you can. Now, if they're interested, fine. If they're not, they'll nod their heads and go on their way. You've given them the information, but you can't tell if they really are going to pass it to any of their friends. I don't know the right way. I guess for me it works well in that if you talk to the local cattlemen's association, they're interested in it because they know it's going to affect them. I think most of the people in Lillooet pay attention because they know it's going to affect them. If I lived in downtown Vancouver, to put it bluntly, I wouldn't give a damn until they decided to take Stanley Park away from me.

You've got the rural areas, and they do, I think, pay partial attention — maybe not as much as you would like them to, but that's the way people are. As the size of the town changes, the information going out doesn't come watered down, but there are fewer people paying attention.

You're right. Perhaps the bigger part of the population is not quite so mixed up in it, and they don't feel it's going to affect them. I don't think they really want to know perhaps. It's the put-your-head-in-the-sand syndrome. When it's over, I'll pull mine out, if I haven't been kicked in the backside in the meantime.

B. Belsey: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning. I have a couple of questions. You made a statement that natives have lost respect for the B.C. government, and I wonder if you could expand on that just a little bit.

D. Jones: Over the years all they've dealt with is federal government. That's been the mandate of the federal system. If they wanted something, that's where they went. If they wanted political influence, that's where they went. I guess it's a history thing. It's really difficult to come into a process, as the provincial government has, through some way or another, and they're there. They have to, because they are the holders of the Crown land. Somebody said, "Yes, we have to give them some land," and the provincial government then must get involved, because they're the holders of the land. There's no argument about that.

I don't think the body politic of the native population has adjusted to that fact yet. I don't know, to put it bluntly, whether they trust the politicians on either side — to be quite honest with you — not only provincial, not federal either. It's: "Now, what are they trying to run by us this time?"

B. Belsey: My second question is just a small point. I didn't quite hear you. Did you say nothing in excess of municipal government or nothing less than municipal government?

D. Jones: I guess I shouldn't turn the question around, but I will. As government bodies increase, you get more powers. I'm not sure that Indian bands should have the power to take somebody to court in their own system. How's that? That's just one example. That's the one I'm using.

In the municipal style of government, unless you get to a city style of government, this isn't possible — right? I think there should be limiting factors on their style of government. That's why I use the municipal model. I think it's a government of…. I hate to say volume, because it isn't. It's a numbers game. You can't have huge bureaucracies telling small reserves what to do.

There was one treaty process where in excess of 80 percent of the registered people on that reserve did not live on the reserve. In essence, if you give them a big bureaucracy, all those who live on the reserve are running the bureaucracy basically. The rest are somewhere else.

J. Les (Chair): How do we ultimately make sure that once the treaty is signed, the benefits flow equally to all members of that reserve?

D. Jones: If I were Solomon, I could tell you, but I have no idea, absolutely no idea whatsoever, to be quite honest with you. I don't know how they'd flow. I really don't. It becomes very, very difficult to guarantee something like that.

I guess the only way to guarantee it is to say that it is a democracy in the ultimate form. If you don't like the administration you've got right now, in three years down the road — because that's when the election is — you turf them out and put another body in there. That's not necessarily the one that was in before, because they might be the same ilk. Isn't that what we do?

J. Les (Chair): Does anybody else have any questions? Thank you very much, David.

J. Les (Chair): I did hear you almost giving up hope at some point in the process. I would encourage people like you to stay involved. Your experience and your long-term residency in areas like this are very important to the process.

D. Jones: As I say, it becomes very frustrating at times; it really does. Let's hope we can get this thing done. To put it rather bluntly, let's get this thing done. Somebody will have to do it, and the sooner the better, so we can get on with life or something.

B. Buttuls: Good morning. My name's Bill Buttuls. I live on Lillooet Road about halfway between here and Lytton. I've been living in that area for probably close to 30 years now. I know a lot of native people in Lytton; I know a lot of white people in Lytton. I'm sort of borderline on a lot of issues. I speak as a citizen, but I have four grandchildren that fall under the Indian Act, so I also speak for them. I'm not too good at following order without reading, so I hope you don't mind if I read a little bit.

B. Buttuls: Okay. I feel the same about the federal government. I think the federal government should be here. They're not. Actually, do you know where they are today? I found this in the Sun paper on Wednesday. I'll just read it. "Communities First: First Nations Governance under the Indian Act." This is the Alliance tribal council. I don't know who they are — maybe one of Stockwell Day's or maybe George Bush's. I don't know. I've never heard of the Alliance tribal council.

Anyway, it invites its members and other first nations people in the Vancouver area to attend a consultation meeting on — I think this is something that Dave was just talking about — "Communities First: First Nations Governance under the Indian Act. The meeting is being held in partnership with the government of Canada." The government of Canada is doing something, but it's funny that it's on the same day as these hearings are, and I don't see any natives here. "Communities First is about listening to first nations people" — that's odd — "to find out how they want their communities run. Communities First is about giving first nations people a voice in shaping new governance legislation."

Okay; then another letter that I found in Wednesday's Bridge River paper says:

This is the federal government. It looks to me like there's a hidden agenda here. It looks to me like the federal Liberals are trying to get the natives onside to develop community-based government, and the provincial…. I don't really know where you guys stand yet, but I guess that's what these hearings are about.

What I'm wondering is: on what basis will the questions that go on this referendum be chosen? Will they be chosen for political interests? Will they be chosen on

the basis of what's best for first nations, or will they chosen on what's best for everyone, for the public?

I've got some ideas for questions that I think should be on the referendum. I think the first question it should ask is: do you think that an injustice has been committed upon native peoples as a result of our intrusion onto the North American continent?

The second question you should ask is: if so, what form of retribution do you think would be acceptable? Then I have a list of three proposals: a once-and-for-all-time payment; an all-time-ongoing resource subsidy paid directly to first nations, not DIA; the formation of a native self-government and an accompanying land base — by land base I mean that the existing reserves stay intact — or a combination of the above three.

I think the next question that should be on the referendum should address the question of land use. It should read: do you think the land and our resources could be better managed under a public land trust? The reason I ask this question is because this is where the real partnership could come into place. It's too bad there aren't native people here, because I should really be reading this to the native sector. I think that native people could get together with the public here, and everybody could benefit. The Delgamuukw decision clearly states that native peoples have an inherent right to the land and the resources. These rights have been eroded and must therefore be replaced. I don't believe it says anything in the Delgamuukw about land title. At least I've never read anything in there about it. I believe a resource subsidy could provide first nations with the money they need to run their government if the land and the resources could be secured at the same time. Here's the catch: it has to be secured for all of us, for the public as well.

What I'm proposing is the formation of a public land trust in partnership with native first nations to secure the land and the resources for all people for all time. You've probably heard that before, because I've been saying this for the last 15 years. I have three submissions in The Wilderness Mosaic. This was in 1986. It's funny it's never been in the news; it's never been printed anywhere. I don't know if I'm paranoid, but it seems to me it's just not getting out there to the public. If such a trust could be implemented, I'm sure the public would be willing to support it — support any outstanding native claims that they still have. I think the public would support native land claims better than the government. I believe a native self-government could provide us with a means to implement that trust if it was brought into power and partnership with the public.

I believe this fourth and final suggestion is the most important because it could provide the public with a form of security that is unprecedented in the world today. It could provide us with a fair and equitable means for distributing our resources, and it could open up more Crown land for the use of the general public. It could also provide first nations with the role in the political life of this country if they were to become the trustees of this partnership. I'm not saying that they own the public lands. I'm saying that native self-government become the trustee on behalf of the public of all Crown land. The reason I say that is because I don't really trust governments anymore. I don't mean you guys. I mean, you are government.

B. Buttuls: The other guys, yeah. Well, I don't trust you guys either. I trust you right now, but when you get together in your little quorums and stuff, you kind have to go along with what Gordon says.

It's clear to me, when I see what's happening in the world today, that a new order of democracy is needed. There is no freedom except for those who are financially secure. Freedom really isn't available to most people. I don't want to talk about the WTC, but this alliance that these nations are forming isn't to preserve democracy and freedom; it's to preserve capitalism. It's to preserve their fat asses. That's what it is. It's a rude comment, but I believe that's what it is.

Did you know that 95 percent of the wealth in North America is in the hands of 50 percent of the people? That's based on houses and what people own. Five percent is all that sustains the other 50 percent. Don't you think that's disgusting? I think it is. I don't think it's going to change unless the public can get some control over what's happening to the economies. In my opinion, the only way the public can do this is to get control of the land and the resources.

Like I said, I've been talking about this for 15 years. Did you hear about the settlement they did in Quebec with the Cree? It was just a few days ago. It was in the papers; it was on TV. The reason they settled with the Cree in Quebec was because the Cree were sitting on water. They were sitting on piles and piles of water. So they made a deal. In B.C. there's really not anything that the government wants from the native people. They've got it all already. That's why they don't want to deal with native people. Why should they deal with them? They've got it all already.

What they do want is for them to be quiet. They don't want the roadblocks. They don't want anything like this. Glen Clark, with his Nisga'a treaty, believe it or not…. That's what he was trying to do. He was trying to give a good deal to the Nisga'a, which he did — he gave a wonderful deal to the Nisga'a people — but what was that for? That was so that when native people started to cry, "Come on, we're not getting this, this and that" — there's still 80 percent of the native claims that haven't been settled — Glen Clark can say: "Shut up. Look what we did. We settled with the Nisga'a." The public will say to the native people: "Shut up. Look at the deal that the Nisga'a got. You've got nothing to cry about anymore." It's just a means for keeping native people quiet.

If there's nothing that the government wants from native people, what can they do? I don't know. I'm speaking as a native person because of my grandchildren. I'm speaking because I hear about these developments in Lillooet that want to go ahead with that ski

resort, and the native people have put a stop to that. In a way, as white person, that irritates me. If you can't log it, there should be some other way that you can make money for a community. It really irritates me. But from a native perspective, if I put myself in their shoes, I'm saying: "They're not even listening to us. They're not talking to us. They keep avoiding us. Why not stop everything until they listen?" There are probably a lot of people here that don't agree with me, but that's the way I feel.

B. Buttuls: Yeah. I know that Crown land is supposed to be public land, but it really isn't, because the people that make the decisions are government people. I think that every community should have an LRMP, a local resource management plan. Every community should have that. Then there should be a larger one for the whole province where this goes into. I think the people of B.C. should still decide what happens to the resources. It's clearly evident that government has been in bed with corporations. I really don't think the public has that much say in what happens to our resources. Certainly native people have no say.

The native people have to be paid off somehow for what's happened. I think a resource subsidy is a really good solution. I think it should be Canada-wide. Native people should go to the World Court and claim cultural genocide. Cultural genocide is what the real problem is here; it's not land claims. They've got lots of land, and they're not doing anything with it. There's anger there; there's hate there. They see what we have as white people, RVs going by all the time, and they're living in poverty. Can you blame them? They're stuck on the reserves.

I don't know. I think that somewhere along the line there have to be changes. This municipal thing that's happening is going to win some native people over, because they're going to give them money. What's going to happen generations down the road? Do you think they're going to forget? I don't know. They're not forgetting in Israel. People don't forget. This thing could keep going and going and going.

I don't think the Liberals will ever put land trusts in, but the Greens might. If the Greens could be convinced to go and put the public land in the land trust, and the natives agreed to that, I think you'd have the Greens…. You guys would have a real problem. I really think this is something that's not going to go away. These ideas are not going to go away.

L. Stock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and standing committee, for the opportunity of being here today. I understand you're near the end of your tour. Hopefully, some of the best is saved for near the last.

L. Stock: I'd like to give special acknowledgment to our MLA, Dave Chutter, for raising Lillooet at your hearings on September 19 as a possible stopping point along your tour and for helping to make it possible.

Well, I'd like to first qualify myself to even speak to this panel. I'm 57 and Canadian-born. I moved to the west and B.C. in '69. I've lived rurally in B.C. for about 15 to 20 years. I lived and worked with the Slavey and the Deni out of the Northwest Territories for a couple of years. I've had industrial and commercial interests with the Kaska Dena and the Tahltans in northern B.C. and the Inkameeps in the Osoyoos area. I've been a part- and full-time resident in the Lillooet area for ten years, and I've been on the RAC — the Lillooet-Fraser Regional Advisory Committee on treaty for the Xaxli'p table — for about a year and a half. I'm an engineer by academic background. By preference I do land administration consulting work for the government approvals process.

I've given a lot of consideration to what I'll say today. I feel you've been put in an awkward position in light not of your aspirations and your charge but of world events. I understand that your charge to move this ahead came on August 27, and we had the infamous, horrific event of September 11. When each and every one of us looks at ourselves in the mirror each day, we have to say: "The world will never be the same place again." That includes the intent, the purpose and the eventual outcomes of what happens here in this process.

I could have written pages. Sometimes I do, and sometimes people chuckle at it, but I tried to condense what I wanted to say into one page. I wanted to be specific to the charge of your committee rather than go on at length and try to expound some of my political views. The charge restricted yourself. As I understand it, through the committee's mandate, the committee will be considering only the matters concerning questions for a referendum on principles to guide the provincial approach to treaty negotiations.

Concerning questions for a referendum. I have two recommended questions for the referendum. I said to myself: in view of the fact that most of the first nations community do not appear to be supportive of this process and almost an absentee view or comment on this from the federal government, two of the four parties that are so essential to this — the four parties being the federal government, first nations, provincial government and communities, and I emphasize the four — seem to be languishing in their commitment to the process. How could this proceed?

Then I put myself in the head of Premier Campbell, having thought about this for ten years while sitting in opposition and having anticipated five years ago that he would have been in government, wanting to seek a way to address and perhaps redress the way the process has been moving in direction, scope, momentum — whatever. I said he has to put the question to the people of

the province or consult with them on the questions on the legitimacy of the treaty process itself and where it is that it seems there's a commitment to the treaty process. The direction it takes seems to be open to some question.

Now, my first recommendation is to establish an accord. Each of you has a copy of my one-page submission. Recommendation 1: establish an accord between the seven linguistic native groups in the province that sets out the concept of aboriginal rights and freedoms within the Constitution Act for the negotiation process. I am reading this out for the benefit of those in the audience who don't have the copy that we have in front of us. This will require legal interpretation of adherence to a revised Indian Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act to initial positions taken by the province and all the member bands in the province.

I propose that referendum question No. 1 is this: do you believe all parties in the treaty negotiation process must start with a common understanding of aboriginal rights and freedoms as a precondition to treaty negotiations? Framing that question, I don't believe that there's an understanding of what the aboriginal rights and freedoms are amongst the non-aboriginal people or the aboriginal people at the lay level below the bureaucracy and the political leadership levels.

At your September 19 hearings the question about education was raised by Gillian there. [Laughter.] Yes, Gillian, you did, and good for you. You raised it. That education process is paramount, and Gillian Trumper being an MLA and a longstanding mayor of Port Alberni and past president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities has many decades of seasoning on the question of consultation and education on fundamental issues. The education process is paramount. That takes time; that takes perhaps a year of time. That's education, assuming commitment by the federal government to this process and by all those others involved.

So towards a common understanding, do you believe that all parties of the treaty negotiation process must start with a common understanding? I believe that, but I believe that each one of the tenets related to the rights and freedoms issues needs to be legally legitimate in the eyes of the courts. There's no sense in proceeding on discussing equality, certainty, finality — whatever are considered to be principles — unless they can be distilled into common laymen's knowledge through an education process, and that process has legitimacy not only through negotiation but also through an interpretation by the courts.

I have to give MLA Dave Chutter, alluding to this in the September 19 minutes of your committee's process here…. The need is to go back to the courts and have a system that is iterative or cyclical so that you can constantly be referring back to the courts to affirm the legitimacy of each one of these tenets that has to go forward. That's on referendum question No. 1.

Referendum question No. 2 is based on a recommendation that the B.C. treaty process develop a treaty-negotiating plan for progressive, comprehensive steps in the treaty process that neither impair economic opportunities with the private sector nor infringe on existing rights and freedoms as defined under the constitution and the Charter.

With nearly one-third of the first nation bands in Canada being in British Columbia and 70 percent of the reserves in Canada being in British Columbia, representing less than 4 percent of the people of British Columbia, there must be a way of building stepping stones with progressive levels of trust over time that allow resources to sustain the process. At the same time, we all must eat. That requires fuel for the economic engine of progress. That brings investment, jobs, housing, community services and incomes to support families as equals.

My proposed referendum question No. 2 is this: do you agree that any treaty-negotiating plan must be flexible enough to allow economic development by all parties while progressing in treaty on rights and entitlement by either the province or the first nations people? I do not believe that rights and entitlement by the province have been legitimately affirmed by the federal Crown. Therefore, I think there's an onus on the provincial Crown as well as the aboriginal peoples to step forward and legitimate their rights and entitlements as they see them.

I understand that we came as a province into Confederation in 1871. I understand that we have rights under the Constitution Act, but the rights that we have can be overridden by the federal Crown. You all know that the federal Crown can expropriate any provincial land it wants. If we have an affirmation process of the provincial Crown with the federal Crown, we will legitimate the position the federal Crown seeks to have the provincial Crown take on the matters of negotiating in aboriginal affairs.

I do not believe, as was brought up earlier, that the first nations people of this province feel that the provincial government has a legitimate right in the treaty process equal to communities and the federal government. If that feeling is out there at this level in this small community and if there is a seed of truth to that, there needs to be an affirmation process of the provincial Crown to the direction that the federal Crown seeks to take on first nations, since the federal Crown ultimately has the responsibility for first nations. That's all I have to say.

D. Chutter: Thanks, Lloyd, for your submission. It was a very thoughtful one as well. You mentioned four parties involved: the feds, the province, aboriginal groups and communities. Is that stated with it in mind that it is your understanding of the past that the communities have been involved, or is that something you would like to see more of? In other words, the community is a full participant in the negotiating process.

L. Stock: Well, I would like to see communities as full participants in the negotiating process. I appreciate the reality that that's not possible. I respect our democratic process that has given the largest mandate

in the province to this provincial government right now. Each one of you here that is an elected politician has a mandate from your constituency.

I would not feel the need for community involvement in this process if I knew that there was a legitimate accountability process for MLAs to their communities and if I had an unquestionable level of trust in my MLA and the political process in this province to represent my interests in the community. Perhaps I haven't answered your question the way you worded it.

D. Chutter: Yes. Maybe to break it into two parts. From your experience so far in the process, do you have a sense that there is community input into the process? Or would you like to see greater ability for a community, local governments, local stakeholders to be involved in the process more than just the RAC system of submitting concerns and not knowing whether you're really heard or not?

L. Stock: I try to parallel this process with the land and resource management plan process that's going on to map out the Crown land base in this province, which in itself, as a process, is aggravating to treaty, if I were a first nations person. But in that process, some exhaustive amount of time — over five years — has taken place in this area with questionable results that are not in consensus.

I would like to see the result of the treaty process referred for comment and there be interim stages of touching base with the communities, much like the province is in the LRMP process, through process advisory committees — all right? I'd like to see a paralleling of the structure of processes so that we don't have different structures of processes for different initiatives by the province, whether it's this or the next time you're here on the economy or on the weather or whatever else you're here for — hopefully not terrorism.

Anyway, I believe that it is not necessary to be involved in every stage. If the structure is set out and the processes understood and there's commitment to it and it's a legitimate process in the eyes of the people, I would not feel the need, speaking personally, to be monitoring on a day-to-day basis what's going on. You're doing your work. It's very delicate work. It's got a lot of nuances, sensitivities. There are personalities. There are changes constantly in personnel over time.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Lloyd, for your very helpful presentation. Leading from your referendum question No. 2, you made the comment that the subject of these meetings is dealing with the referendum. However, I suppose we have had wide discussions on all sorts of issues affecting treaty negotiations, which I think have been very beneficial to everybody. It's given people in the communities the opportunity to air some of their concerns, whether they agree with this or not. I hope it's been of benefit to everybody.

Going back to this question No. 2, where you're talking about economic development. Do you see the process coming to its finality by also having some interim agreements as you go along the road to getting the icing on the cake, which is the signing of the treaty? Or do you not think that's inevitable?

L. Stock: I think interim agreements will be responsive to commercial and industrial interests that want to joint-venture in partnership with the legitimate rights of aboriginals in various parts of B.C., as is going on in various parts of Canada.

As previously mentioned, the Cree nation–Quebec government $3.5 billion, 50-year agreement wasn't voluntary. There was $3.6 billion worth of litigation tied up for 20 years in the courts. This was an accommodation, an arbitrated settlement based on the shock therapy of September 11.

We are a smaller world. We are brothers in the same boat — the insatiable demands of the United States for security of energy supply. The security of energy supply is driving the accommodations between all the Mackenzie Valley Dene. That process is driven by industrial interests and the federal government seeking to make that part of Canada more economically sustainable.

Rather than the provincial process on its own driving interim agreements as stepping stones, I think the provincial government and the process should be structured to accommodate the industrial and commercial interests that want to further the economies of the province, the corporations and the communities. This is very important: I do not think the provincial government should be the initiator. It should be structured in a process that's legitimate to all parties so that it can effect what needs to be effected in a point in time, in history.

Right now President Bush could declare as a matter of national security that they must have the natural gas out of the gas fields in the Prudeau Bay north slopes, and it's got to come through Canada. If the federal government, through the National Energy Board and the policies of this country, agrees that they will support on a bilateral nation-to-nation basis the interests of the United States, the provinces and the peoples in those provinces — regardless of race, colour or creed — have an obligation to try to effect that to happen. There has to be a process in place to accommodate the interests of the parties.

Specifically, if we're talking about the Alaska Highway corridor foothills project — $16 billion — the Achilles' heel is the Kaska-Dene. They went to Houston, Texas, and told a bunch of oil billionaires: "You aren't going there." We should have been ready to deal with that issue. We should have had a process in place. We don't.

M. Lampman: Good morning, Chair Les and fellow committee members. Welcome to Lillooet.

Today I'm speaking as Marg Lampman, private citizen. As background, I can tell you I have spent approximately eight years on treaty issues, first as a RAC member and then as a TAC member, after being elected councillor. Today we are asking what questions should make up the referendum. I would like to talk about the points of treaty-making that need to change and how they can be reflected in the referendum.

First, on self-government. At the treaty table I watched as we spent month after month defining what the responsibilities are and how they would implement them. Writing out a self-government model that can take in every future eventuality is an exercise in second-guessing that adds dozens and dozens of pages to an agreement that would be outdated before they even sign it. As I listened, I heard from the bands that they wanted accountability, transparency and a government that would allow them to take down powers as they grow in size and confidence.

What they are talking about is a municipal government. There is no need for lengthy negotiations to set out powers of self-government. The bands already have councillors and administrators. There would be an easy transition from the adjoining municipalities and regional districts. Municipal governments should be the only acceptable self-government model in British Columbia. Standards of financial accountability should not vary from culture to culture.

Reserve lands and settlement lands. With the formation of the first nations financing authority next year, it will allow bands to borrow money on a long-term basis. However, bands will not be able to use their biggest asset — land — as collateral because federal law prohibits it. The law should allow bands to use their collectively held land as collateral. Band governments must have the ability to offer individual titles on a fee simple basis. The land should be transferable to anyone. If this isn't allowed, the reserve land will become dead capital. A fee simple title would require bands to have guarantees in place that the rights of all landowners and tenants are secured to create a good investment climate and a better economic base on which to build.

Native communities could also hold settlement lands as a corporation. The corporation would hold the land for future generations of the community. Settlement lands should be the only lands that have native rights applied to them. By separating fee simple lands and corporation-held lands, you would provide lands for economic and residential use and also lands for environmental, social and cultural benefit.

The B.C. Treaty Commission. In my opinion, the BCTC as it is presently set up has contributed little in the way of substantial value to the treaty process. Why not have it become a true commission — a commission to negotiate the treaty? If the BCTC were mandated by the provincial government to do the negotiations, it would take away the posturing and confrontational approach that goes on between band leadership and the two levels of government. It would become true negotiations with a commission made up of mayors, councillors and municipal administrators evenly distributed between large and small municipalities, mediators, retired judges and government personnel. It would carry out the function in an impartial and fair way.

The commission is not a court and does not decide whether native title exists or not. It brings people together, so they can explore ways to reach agreements on land use. Once the agreement is made, it would go to the provincial and federal governments for approval. We need a new way of dealing with treaties.

Gordon Gibson, in his article "The Dignity of Being an Ordinary Canadian," says: "The civil servants that toil in this rotten system are often beaten down or numbed by it all, but a surprising number actually buy into this proven failure. How can honest, intelligent, decent public servants support governments based on race?"

Funding. One of the biggest impediments to the completion of a treaty is the borrowing of money by the bands to finance their treaty. It is my opinion that there should be no cost to the bands to go into treaty. This should also apply for local governments. This comes with the proviso not to expect huge sums of money or land in the final treaty. The past history of the province of B.C. will remain just that — past history. We are here today to negotiate land use agreements and funding to set up a municipal government. There will be strict time lines to follow to complete the treaty within a reasonable time, not the four to six years that takes place today. All the bands in the province must sign on with so many years — as an example, five years.

With the present system, the only people to see any benefit from the process are lawyers and consultants. Treaties have spawned an immense industry because we have used cultural differences between native bands as a negotiating tool.

Equality. How can a nation that stresses equal rights for everyone accept special rights for one race or culture? Aboriginal policy is defended on the basis that Canadians should feel guilty for the way native people were treated. Guilt should not be a rational basis on which to make a social policy. We have all heard and seen the poverty and despair of native people in Canada. Pushing the native population further away from the Canadian mainstream will only make it worse than it already is. By joining the Canadian mainstream, it would mean some loss of culture, but by no means all. We have cultures from all over the world in the Canadian mosaic. They have kept their cultures alive while living as Canadians. There is no reason natives can't do the same.

On certainty. British Columbians need certainty out of the treaty. Whether it's residential, commercial or ranchland property, uncertainty is the greatest fear.

We can learn from the Australian process with a statement in their treaty principles: the right to negotiate is not a right to stop projects from going ahead. It is

a right to have a say about how a development takes place. People who claim to hold native title in the area but have not yet made a native title claim and application have three months from the date given in the section 29 notice to file a claim if they want to have a say about the proposed development. To get the right to negotiate, the claim must be registered within a month after that. Native title does not give indigenous Australians the right to veto any project.

On finality. British Columbians need to know that when all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted, there is no going back. You have probably heard from individuals who believe the federal government should be the only negotiators at the table. At one time I also thought that, but after eight years at the treaty table, my opinion of this is: "God help us." The federal negotiators have no idea of the domino effect their decisions will have on small communities. When the treaty is done, everyone will leave our community and leave us to deal with all the problems. In order to have finality, we need to lower the expectations.

We need to stop the rhetoric. We need to bring some commonsense solutions to the table. We need to work out agreements that will bring economic and social success to the band members. We have governing institutions capable of effective management of band lands. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. With the right tools, the native communities will shape their own future instead of having those futures shaped by others.

M. Hunter: Thank you, Marg. That was a presentation that was notable in its clarity, and I thank you for that.

A question for you on your Australian reference. Do you have the reference for that? You talk about the Australian process. Is that a quote from an Australian document?

M. Lampman: It's just within all the material I downloaded out of the Australian treaty process.

D. Chutter: In your section under "Funding," you made a statement: "We are here today to negotiate land use agreements and funding to set up a municipal government," as opposed to some interpretations of the whole negotiation process as a means to decide on compensation for loss of traditional lands. Are you meaning the same thing, or are you redefining that the intention is simply to come up with land use agreements?

M. Lampman: To come up with land use agreements and set them up with the municipal government. For that they will need the funding to start with — money in the bank.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Marg, for coming this morning. We always very much appreciate people who have been involved in the process for a long time. You certainly have been. Hats off to you.

J. Young: I'm presently in grade 12, and I've lived in Lillooet all my life. My father is a retired, self-employed businessman. I've enjoyed my life here. I hope to leave next summer and further my training and education. Eventually when I am finished, I plan to return to Lillooet and raise my family.

This is where my concern lies. I need assurance that when I return, I will find a community that is healthy and flourishing in all ways. I need to know that my neighbours both in the town of Lillooet and in outlying areas are maintaining a healthy lifestyle. I have learned leadership qualities, and in practising them, I have realized that we all need to work together. I have also taken courses in maintaining a healthy environment through the anti-bullying program and again learned that dialogue is necessary. I believe that if I as a student can practise these qualities to better the community, then perhaps adults should enter meaningful dialogue and not worry about who has the most power.

The overall vision of a prosperous community for all people is the vital element. If we listen to those in our community who have experience and who have the best interests of the community at heart, we will progress and all people will enjoy a flourishing community. Thank you.

G. Trumper: I would just like to thank you very much for coming forward. You probably are the youngest presenter we've had. It's very important to get the younger generation involved in these issues, which doesn't happen. You have lots of other interests and, as you say, are going on to a new career. We thank you very much. They're very thoughtful comments you have made. We appreciate that.

M. Hunter: Jenny, my thanks, too, for being here. You started out by saying that when you do come back to Lillooet, after you've done whatever you're going to

do with the next few years of your life, you are concerned that the community will be vibrant — my word, not yours — but I think that was the emotion you were trying to convey. Do you have some fears that things are going on in terms of relationships in this community that make you express that, or is it just a general desire that you were expressing to us?

J. Young: Kind of both. I would like it to be flourishing and nice, but I also think right now in Lillooet there's a lot of…. I don't know any big words.

J. Young: I just think there's a lot of damage right now in the community, where a lot of people are out of jobs and stuff. I think it would be good for the community, whatever goes through.

J. Les (Chair): Anyone else? Thank you very much, Jenny, for coming. We appreciate everyone that comes, but when young people show up, it's a little extra special. Good for you.

D. Carter: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. Am I loud enough?

J. Les (Chair): Actually, we can hear you fine. Sometimes the people in the back can't hear as well.

D. Carter: I've been having trouble hearing at the back. I apologize if I repeat something that somebody else has said.

I'm a small cattle rancher who makes his living off the stock market out of necessity, unfortunately. First of all, I'd like to apologize for a rather disjointed and rambling presentation. I didn't know about your panel until last weekend, so I didn't have time to write something out. There are a few things about a referendum that concern me. I'd like to thank the government for having a referendum. It's the main reason I voted Liberal. To me a referendum is true democracy, but a referendum can be mob rule if people just fly by the seat of their pants. A referendum must be accompanied by well-informed voters, and I think it is the duty of the government and the government through you to see that the people of B.C. are well informed.

About what? First of all, I think we need to be informed about history. I'm an old guy, so I'm going to talk about Indians and whites, even if it isn't accurate. Both the Indian people and the whites have a very poor conception of our history. A few years ago there was an article in the local newspaper written by a chief who I admire, but it was full of inaccuracies. Let's just call them inaccuracies.

I think what we have to get across to people, first of all, is that when the white man came, the Indians had no law. They had no police force. Might was right. I think one of the best ways to learn about our history is to read the journals of some of the early explorers. These men were usually the first white men that the Indians ever saw, and these explorers had no reason for telling stories that were not true.

If you read Samuel Hearne's journal of his explorations of the Coppermine River and the Dene Indians of northern B.C., their customs and their social life were absolutely rotten, I think. It certainly was rotten for women. Women were just chattels. If a man got angry at his wife, or one of his eight wives as in this one case he talks about, he beat her to death. They were bought and sold.

As far as respecting nature, he tells one story about the caribou herds. When they were plentiful, the Indians would just take the hides and the tongues and the bone marrow. I wonder how many young Indians realize these sorts of things happen. Other times, they would go for days and days and starve.

On the other hand, if you read Simon Fraser's journal — all down the Fraser River — he has very complimentary things to say about the Indians, the Thompson Indians mainly, of this area and right down to Merritt. They go to Merritt, don't they, Dave? They were very honourable, very honest, very helpful.

When he got to the mouth of the Fraser and met up with the Musqueams, his band of 25 men, who carried blunderbuss types of weapons, had to form up in a group and tell these threatening people, who were set on attacking them, murdering them and robbing them: "Okay, you'll take us, but we'll take a bunch of you too." They had to do this several times before they were able to get back up the Fraser. We have to remember that there was a great deal of difference between the natives and their customs, and so on.

One other thing that bothers me is that there's been some rewriting of history. There was one incident in the Cariboo, in the Chilcotin. A railroad survey crew was attacked and robbed at night and murdered, massacred. I had occasion to want to look up something about this. The only book I could find was a book that was published by UBC Press, written by an Indian lady. She claimed that this was the Chilcotin war and that these people were really fighting for freedom, because the white men were attacking their women and so on. This, compared to the other reports I'd read, was a complete fabrication. These were just murdering thieves, according to my information. I think these kinds of myths need to be dispelled.

Alexander Thompson is another person who is a journalist and is very interesting and educational.

There's one book I want to recommend. It's called First Nations? Second Thoughts by Tom Flanagan. Tom Flanagan was an adviser to Preston Manning. He's a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. I read a review of his book. I tried at two very large book chains, and they didn't have it. One said they'd ordered it, but it was out of stock. I eventually found one at the UBC bookstore in Vancouver. They said they had three copies, and I only saw one. I tried to tell the librarian there what an important book it

was, and he wouldn't listen to me. I offered to buy as many copies as the local library here in Lillooet wanted. They never did buy any. What this suggests to me is that there's a deliberate censorship of people who want to talk about the basics of our Indian problems.

One of the main recommendations of Tom Flanagan is that the Department of Indian Affairs and the Indian Act be done away with, and also the reserve system. What little I have seen of it, I certainly agree with him. He points out that the reserve system and the Indian Act have been responsible for keeping the Indians down, because they can't borrow money. We can go to a bank and say: "I've got 100 acres" or "I've got a house. Will you loan me some money on this?" We can use the money to gamble, improve our lot or whatever. The Indians can't do that.

Regarding the abuse in Indian schools and so on, some of it was terrible — the sexual abuse, of course. I visited England. My cousin's husband had been brought up in a Catholic orphanage in England, and he said that the nuns were pretty cruel. There was one who would go around and, if somebody had wet their bed, hit them with her flashlight. If the nuns felt they couldn't beat the student up enough, they would get the German gatekeeper to do it.

What I'm saying is that, sure, the residential schools left much to be desired, but there was a desire on the part of the government to try to help the Indians. It didn't work out very well in actuality, but the desire was there. Things were not much different, or probably the same, as they were in other countries.

Just one other thing. Many years ago I met a reporter for the Vancouver Sun. They will assign one reporter to certain areas. This reporter had been assigned to Indian affairs. He'd written quite a few long articles about Indian negotiations and meetings and so on. I said, "What do the Indians want?" and he said: "They've never said." He said that the Indians who are in these negotiations or meetings are so much smarter than the bureaucrats. This is something you're going to have to work on. You're going to have to find some people that have got some brains. I think that's about all.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Don. Does anyone have any questions? Thanks for coming this morning. We appreciate it very much.

L. Shears: I was hoping you were going to have a five-minute break or something for all the people who are sitting here. Do you want to do that? It's up to you.

J. Les (Chair): We could probably all fill up our coffee cups. If we can keep it to ten minutes or less, that would be good. It's quarter to eleven right now. We'll break until about five to eleven. How's that? That way we'll all be recharged and reinvigorated to hear your inspirational words.

L. Shears: My name is Lawrie Shears. I'm here today and was asked to speak on behalf of the Lillooet Chamber of Commerce. I've lived in Lillooet for the last four years. I've lived throughout British Columbia all my life. I was eight years in Terrace and very close to the people in the north — the Nisga'a, Kincolith and those types of people — supplying building supplies to them. I managed the building supply here in town.

The Lillooet Chamber of Commerce mission statement is that we support trade and commerce in this district when it provides a high quality of life for all of its citizens. We are an apolitical organization which provides a platform for all issues in the community to be discussed in openness. We find it difficult to speak to your question on principles to negotiate the treaty process, as we find it to be very vague. My understanding of the word "principle" is that it means a fundamental truth, law or postulate, a rule of code of behaviour and moral or ethical standards in general integrity. Principle also means an underlying or established rule or policy. We feel that more consultation, not confrontation, must be a prerequisite to any set of negotiations.

The current treaty process is not working. We must move ahead, determined not to repeat past mistakes. This can only be done with truthful dialogue. Currently, the native leadership does not acknowledge the provincial government as having any power or authority to negotiate a treaty process. They see this as a federal matter. Unfortunately, there is no federal political will to solve this issue. Their attitude has been one of management and not negotiation.

Ultimately, you must decide before you negotiate who has the final say. Who writes the cheque? Who sets the boundaries? Canada's constitution is based on the rule of law. We ask you if the fundamental truths of this issue have been settled by the courts or the federal government. We ask you to press this issue with the federal government and to work together to build bridges of principles that will show integrity to all parties involved. Only then will democracy be our guiding light, and trust will be established.

Democracy means the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. We leave you with these thoughts: should government use remedial legislation to get the process going? Should government negotiate past grievances? Should government negotiate compensation for past grievances? Should treaties be final or living? Should the government negotiate interim measures prior to treaties?

We thank you for this opportunity to speak on this issue. It's a politically charged issue, and as I said before, we tend to stay out of these types of issues but felt it necessary. There are very many individuals here within our community that are getting left behind. We'd like to have a high quality of life for all of the citizens here in this community. Thank you for your time.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Lawrie. A question, if I might. You use the term "remedial legislation." Can you elaborate on what exactly you mean there?

L. Shears: We talk to different people within the chamber of commerce, and it was something that somebody else had come up with. We don't see the federal government here today, for instance. We don't see the native community here. As a business person I see things more in terms of black and white. It's a be-do-have mentality. You have to be committed to do what it takes to have what you want. Somebody else said this before in terms of going to the natives and asking them what they want.

What do you want, and what are you prepared to do about it? It comes down to those two questions. It's the same with the federal government. What does the province of British Columbia want in these negotiations, and what is the province prepared to do about it? Until we get to the point of just resolving those basic issues or even being together in a room such as this with all parties involved…. To me that would be the first step. If you can't do that, as the person who brought this forward said, would that be something where a remedial type of legislation to get the process back on track would be necessary? Would that be something the government would look at or that the people would ask? What we're talking about is legislating something into being.

J. Les (Chair): You would submit, then, that you could simply legislate the process into action.

L. Shears: No. I think what they're bringing forward to the government is: if nothing's working, is this something that could be done? This is what they were asking the government. We all seem to be in a stalemate. What's it going to take to get this treaty process going again? I'm speaking for somebody else, and this is what I heard them say in terms of remedial legislation.

M. Hunter: Lawrie, thank you. I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit, if I may. I want to ask you on your thoughts 4 and 5: should treaties be final or living? Should the government negotiate interim measures prior to treaties? Does the chamber of commerce have views on those questions?

L. Shears: I believe individual people would have views on that. I don't believe the chamber as a whole would. We see ourselves as a platform where we would want to discuss that as an issue so that both sides of the issue could be brought out. As a chamber we would present to the government what was said about that issue. There's two sides to the coin in both those issues. We do not take positions as a chamber as a whole. We tend to want to be the platform so that things can be resolved. We recognize that there's always going to be two sides. If we can blend those and bring those two sides together, first of all we've established what our goal is for the community. Second of all, we're bringing people together rather than keeping them apart with separate issues.

M. Hunter: The reason I asked is that those issues — finality versus something more flexible, interim measures, a graduated approach to treaties versus a big-bang kind of negotiation — have been raised because they do have impact on business. That's why I asked you the question. There are different implications, different incentives and results possible from those scenarios. If your chamber does have further thoughts, I would welcome your submitting them to us before next Friday.

L. Shears: Just so you know, one of the things the chamber did was send 45 faxes to Ottawa to try and find out what was really going on. That's the one thing we have found: there's so much misinformation in this whole issue.

The federal government sent a negotiator to talk to the chamber about this issue. We suggested to him that more thought in terms of what is actually going on be given out to the public so that we could be more aware and educated about what the federal government is thinking about. What direction are they taking? It's been mostly behind closed doors.

We were just talking before. If you watch the war effort in the United States right now, they're also talking about having a domestic spokesman come out and talk to the domestic side of the American people on what's really going on — just as much as President Bush and the generals will speak about the war effort. So much is needed. I believe that is something that's very much needed in this issue, so we can come together and form consensus on this issue.

J. Les (Chair): Anyone else? As a chamber, then, you take no particular position on any of the issues.

L. Shears: We've found it to be very, very effective in our community not to take a position on issues, because we see that it's a win-lose situation. We as a chamber believe that we can be in a win-win situation. Just because a person has a totally different opinion than I do doesn't mean that I have to hate him or that I have to look at him any differently. It just means that he has a different opinion than I do. We've tried to bring this message to a group such as this in order to move forward rather than being stuck. So many issues become stuck because people take a certain position.

We as a chamber believe that we can be effective in our community. We've done it for four consecutive years, and we have a good reputation in town because of this ability of people who are, say, stuck in their issues to be able to at least feel the freedom to come out to a meeting such as this and speak their minds.

When the roadblock happened a couple of years ago, the chiefs of the area felt that the chamber was the place to resolve that issue. I was involved in that, where we explained to them that we have no power. That issue was about power; that issue was about treaty. They were out on the road because of that. The chamber was able to resolve a sense of consensus with the logging community, the trucking community, the business community and the native community. As somebody has said, we need more information on who we are living with. In this case, we had two sides. What are your issues? How can we blend these together and open that road? That was the real issue for the community. The road was closed. We couldn't do business in this town.

That's the role this chamber has taken in this community. I believe that when we first started out, it was a fact that we had to be the voice for the business community. We had to be an apolitical platform in order to be effective in a community in order that people could come together with totally different views and totally different ideas. Otherwise, all you have are two different groups with opposite viewpoints that never talk or work with one another. We want to build a community rather than having people walking around with this community going nowhere because we're stuck in our position. We want to bring those positions forward so we can at least hear one another. We may not agree with one another, but we are at least trying to hear the issues.

E. Warner: Good morning, Chairman Les and committee members. I just want to say before I start how great it was on the drive over from Pemberton this morning to see our logging trucks out there hauling on the highway and that this industry is still struggling to survive. It was great to see them.

My name is Elinor Warner. I am the mayor of Pemberton and the chair of PIXTAC. I am pleased to present our ideas to you on behalf of PIXTAC. The PIXTAC name was derived from the initials of the first nations who were involved in the treaty process in our area: the Pavilion, In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua and Xaxli'p first nations. Our treaty advisory committee represents elected local governments of the village of Pemberton, the district of Lillooet and the electoral areas B and C of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district.

In reviewing the transcripts of presenters across the province, we have been impressed by the thoroughness and the quality of the presentations. Many of the presentations have identified issues related to resolving treaties and suggestions to enhance the treaty process. You as committee members should be applauded for your eagerness to question and understand the comments made by the presenters. I also noticed your interest in urging the presenters to provide you with suggestions for questions which could be used in the referendum.

In recognition of your previous requests, the PIXTAC hopes to be able to provide you with suggestions for specific questions in our presentation. However, before proceeding, we must acknowledge that some members of the PIXTAC have concerns regarding the referendum itself. These concerns are not aimed at questioning the effectiveness of referendums as an elementary principle of democracy but, rather, are related to the potential of creating a greater division in our communities with neighbouring first nations communities. Although some of us question the wisdom of a referendum on this issue, it is clear that the government will proceed with the referendum. We therefore respectfully provide you with our ideas.

It is our understanding that the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs wants to hear our recommendations and questions for a referendum on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations. Over the past few years the provincial government has been actively developing a set of provincewide mandates or principles for treaty negotiations. In the past treaty mandates and principles were developed by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in conjunction with other provincial government ministries and agencies and were reviewed and approved by cabinet. These mandates and principles are the instructions that provide provincial negotiators with general directions and/or a range of policy options to be used in the course of finalizing treaties. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to ensure that the province's overall objectives are implemented during all treaty negotiations.

PIXTAC supports the need for treaties in British Columbia and, in general, endorses many of the principles and interests articulated in the provincial mandate papers. However, it is our experience that the provincial mandates provided to negotiators were broad-based and lacked sufficient clarity. For instance, in our area the province and first nations in the treaty process entered into numerous subagreements. Subagreements were reached on water resources, parks and protected areas, police services and forestry. Each of these subagreements were to become chapters in the agreement-in-principle. However, the subagreements, which were to be tied together for the agreement-in-principle, were often vague. For instance, the self-government subagreement reads that the first nation will exercise legislative, executive and judicial functions as set out in the final agreement. Of grave concern is the lack of definition of what powers the first nation is being granted because the final agreement wasn't there.

As local government representatives, we were asked to comment on subagreements that were vague and accept that the provincial and first nations lawyers would be able to draft appropriate language which reflected our aspirations and the provincial government mandates. In short, we were expected to participate in a process where lawyers would draft the real meaning of the treaties.

Yes, the province has shared their mandates with us, but these mandates were so broad that they do not provide us with the assurances that we require. Clearly, we cannot wait until the actual final agreements are signed to discover how the mandates will be applied. Mandates must be sufficiently defined to establish principles which will guide the treaty process. We believe that the referendum process can help achieve more clarity in the provincial mandates.

First, through the referendum question we must identify the principles of treaty-making. You as legislators then need to translate these principles into mandates. That is, the referendum can play an important role in asking the people of B.C. the questions that will assist the province to prepare mandates. In today's presentation we will identify some of the specific areas where we believe the province needs to seek clarification from the electorate.

Questions related to aboriginal self-government. We believe that the province needs to seek direction from the electorate on the issue of the jurisdiction of aboriginal self-government. Two specific issues need to be addressed: the rights of non-aboriginals on settlement lands and the extent and powers of aboriginal self-government.

The rights of non-aboriginals on settlement land. The provincial mandates indicate that aboriginal governments will develop structures that will allow them to deal effectively with precedence of settlement lands to the extent of their jurisdiction. The mandates also note the need to provide representation for all those who are affected by the decisions of aboriginal governments. One of the subagreements reached between the province and the first nation in our area states that those who are not first nations citizens will be consulted about first nations governmental decisions which significantly affect them. According to the agreement, these individuals will have the opportunity to participate on subordinate government bodies.

This example symbolizes the concern I alluded to in my introduction; that is, treaty agreements are being reached which are so vague that they're open to interpretation. If each provincial negotiating team enters into similar vague agreements-in-principle, there is no wonder that at the end of the day we will have a patchwork of different jurisdictions. With this discretion being given to the negotiating team, the rights of non-aboriginals on settlement lands will vary depending upon where they live.

Therefore, the PIXTAC, on behalf of its constituents, believes that the province should develop a clearer mandate on the rights of non-aboriginals who will be residing on settlement lands. Through the referendum you should consider soliciting the opinion of the electorate in terms of how individuals who reside on settlement lands will be fairly represented on issues which affect them. In many instances, as you will have heard in your travels, non-aboriginals on settlement lands may very well pay taxes but will have no representation on those who tax them.

The negotiators need to receive clear direction from you, as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly, on issues such as which non-aboriginal interests will be represented in aboriginal government structures. How vigorously is the province prepared to support representation by non-aboriginal people, and how, in practical terms, will these interests be represented? We feel that the province should clarify its vague approach to date on this issue through the referendum process, posing questions such as question No. 1. Input of non-aboriginals residing on settlement lands in the decision-making is only required on activities where non-aboriginals pay property tax to first nations in return for services. Input of non-aboriginals residing on settlement lands in the decision-making should be broad-based and include input on local service delivery, public health and safety, child care, education, recreation and parks, community planning, etc. Feedback from the electorate on the above question will provide legislators with a greater opportunity to begin identifying the mandates that they should be conferring to their negotiating team.

The extent and powers of aboriginal self-government. We believe the treaty should result in a consistent and equitable approach to self-government throughout the province. A variety of aboriginal government models with standards and structures would be cumbersome and inefficient. Within the PIXTAC we have several separate treaty tables. If each of these treaty tables results in a variety of aboriginal government models, then we would be faced with a patchwork of different jurisdictions and regulations. It is possible that there will be numerous different building codes and environmental standards for waste disposal unless there are consistent standards between settlement and non-settlement lands.

We believe the treaty should set the stage for more cooperation between first nations and governments rather than setting up separate enclaves. We believe that there are opportunities for partnership and collectively working together on issues such as solid waste management, environmental protection and sustaining our water resources. The treaty should be promoting and creating efficiencies and encouraging partnerships rather than creating interjurisdictional conflict. It's our hope that the treaty process will result in harmonization between settlement lands and non-settlement lands, thereby creating a seamless border between first nations and other local governments in terms of environmental regulations, standards, assessments and planning.

For local government, aboriginal self-government raises a number of important and complex issues in terms of defining jurisdictions, fiscal arrangements, and powers and communication as they relate to planning, infrastructure, local service delivery, property taxation and standards. We are concerned that the creation of distinct aboriginal governments has the potential of increasing jurisdictional fragmentation.

For instance, we are concerned about the potential transfer of legislated authority over water to first nations.

The PIXTAC believes that water is essential to numerous and diverse interests within the region. Due to its transitory nature, ownership is critical to the exercise of jurisdiction and for effective management. We therefore believe that all water property rights remain with the province so that there is only one authority responsible for the health and protection of watersheds.

Yet the subagreements that have been reached in our area suggest provincial laws concerning water may not have jurisdiction on settlement lands. For instance, the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua subagreement states that the first nation will have a role in water resource management on settlement lands, which may include legislative authority. The subagreement also states: "Except where provided in the final agreement, provincial laws will apply." Again, we're back to that vagueness.

PIXTAC believes that all laws of general application pertaining to the use, management and conservation of water resources should apply in settlement lands. There needs to be clarification on the province's negotiating principles on this issue.

A question should be considered which seeks direction from the electorate on the province's principles on the extent and power of aboriginal self-government. Question No. 2 could be drafted, which is: "Suggest that through the treaty process, the province could negotiate aboriginal self-government which provides for unconditional aboriginal government authority within a constitutional framework; or limited aboriginal authority subject to conditions; or delegated aboriginal government authority, whereby the province could retain the ultimate control over the program area."

Through considering the direction provided by the electorate, legislators will be able to develop more specific mandates. They will ensure that the negotiators are provided with a clear understanding of what they can discuss and that their mandates have received endorsement from the people of B.C.

Questions related to the extent of aboriginal rights off settlement lands. Clarity needs to be achieved in terms of the extent of aboriginal authority off settlement lands. It is our understanding that the province's current mandate states that treaties will recognize the importance of including first nations in some of the decision-making with respect to public lands and resources. We believe that certainty, which all British Columbians are seeking, can only be assured if first nations are prepared to receive authority over settlement lands in exchange for aboriginal rights on Crown and private lands. We feel that's very important.

We acknowledge that both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people will have specific cultural heritage resources that they wish to protect. These may be situated on or off settlement lands. It is important to respect these sites and as a consequence support the selection and designation of culturally specific sites within very specific parameters. Therefore, the PIXTAC supports the first nations as part of their land selection process in identifying and selecting culturally specific sites which may not be contiguous to their settlement lands and urges the provincial government to develop realistic parameters to guide this process.

At the end of the treaty-making process on Crown lands, it is important that all individuals are treated as equals. Different rules for different people will only exacerbate discrimination. Treaties should foster a non-discriminatory society. Therefore, we believe that the treaty negotiations should deal in the exercise of aboriginal rights being limited to settlement lands. If a treaty recognizes aboriginal rights on Crown land instead of an exchange of those rights, then certainty will never be achieved.

We believe that this issue needs to be discussed in greater detail given its importance to the social and economic climate that will occur in post-treaty government. The electorate should be provided with an opportunity to provide their opinion on the issue. A question such as the one proposed below is therefore put forth for your consideration.

Question No. 3. After treaties, aboriginal rights should be limited to settlement land, and first nations participation in the management and planning of resources off settlement land should take place within an existing provincial process and legislative framework; or in the treaty all aboriginal rights off settlement land will be defined ? where differences of opinion occur, then binding dispute resolution procedures will be enacted; or after treaties, aboriginal rights and Crown land still need to be honoured and respected. We feel those questions have got to be asked.

Other considerations. Before concluding, we would also like to provide our observation on the B.C. Treaty Commission and its role in identifying the readiness of first nations to participate and continue in the treaty process. It is our understanding that stage 2 of the treaty process is entitled "Preparing for negotiations and assessing readiness." This stage is intended to confirm that each of the negotiating parties has — and I quote from the Treaty Commission policies — "a comprehensive and clear mandate to negotiate a framework" that has received its mandate and describes this process for developing and revising this mandate during all stages of the negotiations. However, our experience suggests that these preconditions are not always in place. If they were in place at the time that the first nations entered the treaty process, they were not always maintained.

We draw your attention to this issue because we, as the treaty advisory committee, put in many long hours in trying to maintain our awareness of negotiations and provide our input to provincial negotiators. Our experience is that once a negotiation has achieved the beginning of an agreement and a first nations community is informed of the drafts of agreement, the process falls apart. This leads us to wonder whether there is a consensus among first nations communities' members on the mandates of their negotiators. We often hear complaints from individuals in our neighbouring aboriginal communities that they don't like the treaty process or they don't like the agreements that are being considered by their negotiating team. Therefore, we

feel it's incumbent upon the B.C. Treaty Commission to not only assess the readiness at the time a first nation enters the treaty process but ensure that first nations negotiators continue to have a mandate from their communities.

There are countless individuals in our community and in aboriginal communities who have dedicated endless hours to this negotiating process. Large sums of money have been expended. It is important that each of the parties involved negotiates in good faith and demonstrates that it has the support of its constituents. We, therefore, urge the provincial government, which is part of the Treaty Commission, to ensure that the first nations negotiate with the support of their constituents. The process in which you are involved is clearly intended to ensure that the provincial negotiating teams are putting forth positions that have the support of the electorate. We expect that as a result of this public input and referendum results, you as members of the government will assess and clarify the provincial mandates. We expect the same from the first nations governments.

In conclusion, we hope that throughout this process there will be renewed public support for resolving the treaty process and, secondly, that negotiations will be provided with mandates that have the support of British Columbians.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Elinor, for your very thoughtful presentation. I appreciate the tax input. You commented on the B.C. Treaty Commission maybe not fulfilling its mandate. Can you give any suggestions as to how you think it could change the direction?

E. Warner: Can I tell you what happened in our area? We had the fastest-moving treaty process in the province in the In-SCHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua band, except for signing the principles. The In-SCHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua backed away from the table at that time due to wording or whatever. We as local people in our community knew they didn't have the support in their community. We were being told: "When it gets to a referendum, we're voting no. We don't care what those guys are doing."

I don't know how many times we give this opinion to the negotiators who really felt they understood the communities far better than the local people did. We went and met with the Treaty Commission and explained our concerns of their process. We don't think that referendums were done well within the communities or maybe not at all. There was no continuing monitoring of how the communities felt about what was being negotiated on their behalf. As the Treaty Commission handles the money and puts it out in our area — you know, regulates how the money is being spent — we definitely had two native bands with one accusing the other of having money, etc., etc. We really felt that the Treaty Commission was not taking the leadership that it should or providing that the negotiators had the mandate from the people. We wasted a lot of time sitting at a table when people didn't have the mandate.

G. Trumper: A similar thing happened in the area that I come from. The AIP was initialled, and then the membership turned it down, which begs the question as to how involved everybody was.

Do you know whether the Treaty Commission was involved in administrating the voting that took place, or was it purely done by…?

E. Warner: I don't know how the first voting was done, period, for them to get into it. I don't believe the N'Quat'qua had a vote to begin with. I think that entering into the process, the vote wasn't done properly. When they came down to the end, they had proper referendums in each of the communities which then, of course, said no, thank you. There were three or four years spent at the negotiating table.

B. Belsey: Thank you, Elinor, for your presentation. You brought out some very interesting points, and I'm fascinated with the one regarding the B.C. Treaty Commission and the lack of, maybe, a clear mandate from the first nations they're representing. Would you suggest that it may be worthwhile, as a treaty process works through each stage, that maybe they'd come back after stage 1, stage 2 and on up with a clear mandate from their people to move ahead with the next stage?

E. Warner: Certainly, when they're signing off such important chapters of fish, wildlife, water or whatever, I think it's important that the community have the chance to comment on it. I know we went back to our community with water rights, etc., because those were important things to us all. I'm sure they're important to the native community. I think that as the chapters progress, there's got to be some way that the community has an input, not just the negotiator and the lawyer at that table.

E. Warner: Our area is laid out so we go way down Lillooet Lake. There are three bands down Lillooet Lake, and then the other band that was negotiating is in D'Arcy at Anderson Lake. There are three different communities, very far apart, negotiating with one negotiating team. That is a problem. The negotiator came from down Lillooet Lake, whereas the people up in D'Arcy felt they'd never, ever seen those negotiators and had no input. We really feel the Treaty Commission needs to take more of a role. The people who guide it decide what money is going to be spent, etc.

R. Visser: One of the things we keep hearing is that treaties are local by nature, and once the negotiating is done, then all the local people have to live with them and implement them and make them work over time.

Are the TAC program — the treaty advisory committee program — and the regional advisory committee program providing local communities with enough input?

E. Warner: In our area, very definitely. Our RAC fully represented all aspects of our community. They were very active. They provided papers on fish and wildlife, and our community really wanted to go forth with the treaty. We really did, and we were well informed.

R. Visser: That's great. Did the negotiators listen to where you were coming from? Did they implement some of the ideas that you've had?

E. Warner: I think they did in our area. The only thing they didn't listen to was when we were saying that the treaty process is falling apart. They were so clear on wanting to get the paper signed. They had a deadline, and no matter what the cost, let's sign the paper. They didn't listen to the local people. We felt we were giving them pretty good input, you know. We had talked to our neighbours, and we knew what they were feeling. We would never have got to that table where an agreement-in-principle was rejected so profoundly if we had been listened to earlier.

R. Visser: Is there a difference between the federal and provincial level of acceptance in your local area?

E. Warner: In our area, because our RAC was so strong, I think the negotiators listened to our RAC for input into the papers. The difference between the two…. Quite often they were at loggerheads at the table. I don't think I'd comment on that aspect of it at all.

J. Les (Chair): Elinor, I'm interested in your comments on the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua negotiations. As you may know, I was sort of involved from the other end of those. You made a comment a minute ago that there seemed to be another ulterior motive or agenda to push these negotiations along.

E. Warner: Yes, I believe there was a political agenda at the time, in my own personal opinion.

J. Les (Chair): A couple of years ago I visited some of the communities up in the Lillooet Lake area. You really had to wonder whether perhaps there shouldn't have been other priorities besides treaty-making in the first place, given the social conditions that are extant in those communities. Have you got any comment on that area? Should we be looking at a more incremental process that perhaps sees treaties being finalized at some point but has a series of stepping-stones that help us get there?

E. Warner: I agree with that totally. I was down in Lillooet Lake at a meeting where we talked about the condition of the Lillooet Lake road. Children are going across this 28-kilometre, very unsafe road in the wintertime. Some of these things are more important than treaty negotiations — the social aspects of being able to get families from that far away to medical help, doctors, over a road that is very, very dangerous. It's a Forestry road that receives $20,000 a year from the government to maintain it. There are now about 400 people living down in the In-SHUCK-ch part of it — the three local bands. That's a pretty awful road. I agree with you that the social standards may be something that should be given more precedence than actually negotiating treaties.

M. Hunter: Elinor, I'd like to thank you for your presentation too. I found it very helpful. I want to just pursue this Treaty Commission thing from a slightly different angle. Can you characterize for us why the aboriginal side in the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua rejected the deal? Was it a matter that there wasn't enough on the table? Was it a matter of what you just talked about with the Chair — that there were current socioeconomic conditions that needed to be fixed first? Is it possible to characterize why the deal wasn't acceptable? Can you do that for us?

E. Warner: When the negotiator, Gerard Peters, rejected it at the table, he said it was the wording. He was rejecting the word "offer." It's our understanding locally that he realized by then that he didn't have the support within his area for what was being negotiated.

M. Hunter: So the people he was purporting to represent…. Was their dissatisfaction in that the offer wasn't rich enough or that it was in the wrong direction? That's what I was really after.

E. Warner: I think, if anything, that was it. They weren't being told what was being negotiated, and somewhere along the line that fell down.

J. Les (Chair): Just to further clarify that point, I think there's some dispute there as to the governance of those bands — whether it's a custom band or whether it's an Indian Act council that speaks for the people in the area.

E. Warner: There was a concern about money allocations. For the N'Quat'qua, the Anderson Lake band at D'Arcy, all the money was going somewhere else. In another area, they were having a lot of internal disagreements amongst themselves.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much, Elinor, for coming this morning. We appreciate it.

R. Adolph: My name is Roger Adolph. My real name is Tmicwus. I'm with the Xaxli'p community, otherwise known as the Fountain Indian band. I'm also a member of the St'at'imx people. That's the language that I speak. I always like to refer to my real name as Tmicwus. My borrowed name is Roger Adolph. I'm here today as Roger Adolph. I'm here as an individual.

First of all, I want to congratulate the Liberal Party for their overwhelming victory in the last election. I'm a member of the All Nations Party. We're just newly formed, and we're not too far behind you. We're going to catch up.

Anyway, I'm here just to offer a little bit of the experience that I have, a little bit of knowledge that I have, to the committee. I was the chief for 17 years with the Xaxli'p first nations. I was also the chief negotiator. I've been involved right from the very start with the formation of the B.C. Treaty Commission — directly involved in it. I know the concepts and the background of why it's there. For that matter, I was involved right from the beginning of it with a meeting with former Premier Bill Vander Zalm on the railroad tracks at Seton Lake. That was back in 1990, when the blockades were heavy. A lot of uncertainty was caused by that. For that matter, it was costing B.C. Railway or the provincial government $8 million a day, because the railway was stopped.

That's past history. I'm here today to address the question of the referendum and the principles. I just want to base my comments on historical facts and figures that have already been completed and documented. I'm sure that the committee has done a lot of homework on the background of the B.C. Treaty Commission. The B.C. Treaty Commission was formed with very important principles attached to it. If you look at the B.C. Treaty Commission agreement, those principles come from the report that was done by the B.C. Claims Task Force, completed June 28, 1991. It cost the provincial government, I believe, $13.5 million to do that study, like what you're doing now. Out of that B.C. Claims Task Force report came 19 recommendations. One of those, the third one, was to form the B.C. Treaty Commission to get treaties going.

Because I sat on the railroad blockade and because I did not want to see my children and other people having to go through the hardship that it causes within our communities — not only within our native communities but also within the community of Lillooet and other communities — the uncertainty that it causes, and the frustration and the anger that comes with it…. I really don't want to see my children go through that. So I thought: well, the only other way to go is through negotiations. At that time I was able to convince my community to go to treaty negotiations. I got the mandate, and we entered into it.

We studied those 19 recommendations. We studied the B.C. Treaty Commission agreement. I sat with the other chiefs of the first nations summit in direct negotiations with the federal and the provincial governments regarding the finalization of the Treaty Commission agreement, the cost-sharing agreement, the funding agreements and including the principles. Now, that cost a lot of money.

There have been some other documents that I would suggest the committee take a look at. One is called The Report to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. It was completed in 1996 and cost the federal government $52 million. There's also the Canadian Human Rights Commission report dealing with outstanding matters addressing human rights in Canada. That's ongoing not only in Canada but at the United Nations level. There is a history on the legalities of the Canadian constitution regarding the formation of the Indian Act, the formation of the Department of Indian Affairs and its status today to the tune of $7 billion. We all ask: "Where is all this money going?"

There are also the court decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, by the province of British Columbia, addressing aboriginal title. The court decision that we all know about is the Delgamuukw decision. The last figure I had was that the court case cost $3 billion over a 15-year period.

Now we've got the Liberal Party in place, and the treaty process is not going. I would just like to address, if I can, Mr. Chairman, the principles for treaty negotiations that were adopted by the provincial government. These are the principles from B.C. If I have time, I would like to address each item.

Principles for treaty negotiations. "Private property is not on the table." It was always the first nations position that we are not at the treaty table to kick anybody off their land. We're not at the treaty table to ruin anybody's business, but there are still outstanding matters regarding private property, in our eyes. We're not going to kick anybody out. That topic of negotiation was at the table, and it's very clear. One of the key principles at the table was that this be interest-based negotiations, not position-based. It's interest-based; there's a big difference.

The first nations have our position, the provincial government have their position, and the federal government have their position. Now, we take those positions, and we're going to try to find a happy medium. That's where interest-based comes in. It's very clear in the Treaty Commission agreement that that be followed. However, when the province put the principles on the table, we took it and said: "Okay, that's their position." Now it's got to be negotiated. That's why, when the negotiations came to the agreement-in-principle stage, up to date they have all been rejected. It's been rejected because — in my mind, in my experience and the little bit of knowledge that I have of it — the origin of the B.C. Treaty Commission agreement, the B.C. Claims Task Force report with the 19 recommendations were not being met.

You know, we talk about interim measures. We talk about taxation. We talk about governance, and there are one or two others that are in there — even the common situation of recognition that we are an aboriginal people with a territory. The federal government could not accept that. The provincial negotiators said: "Yeah, okay, but…." But the federal government made

I'm kind of drifting away from these principles here that the province came up with. I'd like to give a little background on it. In my experience as a former chief and a former negotiator, before a treaty is going to get anywhere, the first obstacle that we've all got to get rid of in this country is the Indian Act — the whole Indian Act system. When you really look at it, when you really study it, it's the most undemocratic piece of legislation that this country has. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has come right out and said that. What it's done with the treaty process….

I can clearly recall that we do not want Indian Affairs involved in this treaty process, because they're in a conflict of interest. Who's involved in it now? The Department of Indian Affairs. As soon as the Department of Indian Affairs gets involved in it, it's geared for failure — guaranteed. That's what the reserve system is: geared for failure. That's why we live in Third World communities today. We've got to get rid of that system.

I think to get to that point, on the principles…. We're forever, as in my past experience, trying to educate the public, trying to educate the new governments that come into place what it is that we're all about, us aboriginal people — our culture or our way of life, our language, our land. When we get to the table, we go through a long process of this education trying to educate the new negotiators, trying to educate MLAs like yourselves, the MPs from Ottawa and other people about what we're about. It comes right down to this. When it comes to the land, the natural resources and money, it comes to a halt, because when it comes to the land, our people have a very sacred connection to the land. My name is Tmicwus. My face comes from the land. That's what that means. We have a very sacred connection to the land; we have a very sacred connection to the natural resources.

We still haven't learned how to deal with money and economics. It's still fairly new to us. We need to catch up there. We're going to do that through education. It's much needed. However, as long as we're in this reserve system, we're not going to get there. For non-natives, the only thing I can see is just to try to understand it. That's all. You can do nothing for us; we have to do it. We have to get out of it when we're ready. As long as we're in that system, there's going to be no treaty.

Nisga'a is different. They went through a lot to even get to the agreement that they got. A lot of people don't agree with it. A lot of the native leadership and people in this province don't agree with it. They got something out of it, anyway — what they believe is right.

Getting back to the principles. "Continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed." No problem. That never was an issue at the tables. "The Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply equally to all British Columbians." No problem. "Fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests will be assured."

Just to let you know, Mr. Chair and committee members, the word "compensation" was very, very diligently negotiated — very hard — between all chief negotiators of all three parties. First nations, of course, wanted compensation because as we look at it, land and natural resources were taken away from us. However, the word "compensation" could not be accepted, especially by the provincial negotiators. We had a great big three-day negotiation session with all chief negotiators just over that one word. At the end of the third day, the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs at that time came right out and said: "The reason we can't accept 'compensation' is because both levels of government can't afford to repay the damages that have been done. That's the bottom line." We said: "Okay, but let's put it on the table, and let's talk about it." Still no. We settled with "financial matters" in place of "compensation." I know that in our negotiations, that's what we settled for. Anyway, those are some of the experiences I had with it.

"Jurisdictional certainty between first nations and the local municipality must be clearly spelled out." No problem. You know, we had our difficulties with our land being alienated from us — further alienated through permits, through natural resources — while negotiations were going on. We had problems with that. But it was not a problem with the local municipality; it was always a problem with the provincial government and the ministries.

"Provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection will continue to apply." It's a given; it's much needed. We acknowledge that. Resource management and environmental protection are very important to us, especially environmental protection.

"The federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained." There's the Indian Act coming out again, facing us square in the face. I understand that the cost-sharing agreement between the federal government and the provincial government is 60-40 percent. Even at that, they weren't able to come to a real final agreement on it, even to this date. That's under the NDP, mind you.

"Agreements must be affordable for all British Columbians." No problem. However, when the process is stalled and positions are there, it is going to get more costly. That's my observation. That's my gut feeling about it.

"The province will maintain parks and protected areas for the use and benefit of all British Columbians." No problem. "All the terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences will be met." We had problems with that one because of interim measures. The interim measures portion of the B.C. Treaty Commission agreement, where recommendation No. 6 of the B.C. Claims Task Force report clearly outlines that interim measures will be implemented while negotiations are going on — the province couldn't accept that. The province backed away from that recommendation,

even though Premier Mike Harcourt signed his name to it. The former NDP government recognized aboriginal title and aboriginal rights. They came around and recognized it. They got our votes, but we ended up with nothing. We're hoping now that the Liberal Party — all three parties — will have a different outlook on that and say: "Look, let's bite the bullet, and let's get on with it." As I see it, there's fear and mistrust on all three sides, and that's why we can't get anywhere.

"The existing tax exemptions for aboriginal people will be phased out." Well, I went to the gas station down here. I filled up my tank. I got tax exemptions, signed my name there and saved $3. Look at the Indian Act, Mr. Chairman. The only advantage aboriginal people have under the Indian Act is the tax exemption — that small, little advantage. It's the only advantage we've got. Now the government doesn't want it.

You take a look at the United States government. Why are the United States tribes so much further ahead than we are? It's because the U.S. government had the will to take that next step and say: "Yes. You're the original people here, and we're going to treat you like that." Development is happening down there — not in all places, mind you, but in a lot of places. You go to some of those tribes down there. They're very well off. The culture, the languages and the way of life of the well-off tribes are coming back. It's the have-nots that are really having serious problems, and that's where we're at. We're having serious problems right in our communities.

"When the treaty process is complete, the total area of land held by first nations will be proportional to their population." In fairness, Mr. Chairman, I think that when the first settlers came here — I don't recall the exact numbers, about 300 acres per individual…. And what did the aboriginal people get? We got reserves. I've got 40 acres of land on the Fountain Indian reserve right now. I can't do anything with that piece of land. I just live there; that's all I can do. It's right back to that system, Mr. Chairman, and it's not anybody's fault here. It's got to be done away with, because what it's doing is dividing us really bad.

The provincial government, the municipalities, the non-native people and the native people in this province are all of a sudden, since 1990, talking treaty. Before that you never heard the word — never. There were a lot of complaints, mind you, but you never heard the word "treaty." Now it's here. Now it's staring us square in the face. I am getting questions on it. The sense I get is that maybe the Liberal Party just wants a no vote from the public regarding treaties. It's not necessary. Okay. Well, if it's a no, then at least maybe we could be saving the provincial coffers some money. Just do away with it. If the principles that are in place now are not going to be met or they can't negotiate it, and if the provincial negotiators continue to come to the table with a very limited mandate….

This was one of the problems, Mr. Chairman — a very limited mandate. Under the NDP party they didn't really have a clear mandate when it came to lands and natural resources, interim measures, taxation, things like that. They didn't have a clear mandate to address that, with the exception of what's on here.

I just want to make a suggestion — that there be an awareness behind why there's a treaty process in place. I think the committee members have probably done a lot of studying up on it already, but basically the basis of it is the B.C. Claims Task Force report with the 19 recommendations. All the principles are there. To try to come up with something different, I think we might be causing….

It's all part of a process that we all need to become aware of, including my people. A lot of my people in my community don't really understand what a treaty is. They don't understand negotiation processes. A lot of non-native people don't understand the concept of why we're at the table. As long as there is no understanding, you're going to get fear and you're going to get mistrust. That's what is blocking us.

My first recommendation is to get rid of the Indian Act. Let's work together to do it, because that's the feds' responsibility, and right now they're not. They're hoarding that Indian Act like it's their $7 billion that's in Delgamuukw, and they're hoarding it. They don't want to let it go. Let's squash it; get rid of it. It's not doing you or anybody in this room any good; it's not doing me any good.

I just want to leave some questions that maybe the committee members might want to ask. I understand I might have gone over my 15 minutes here. I'm sorry about that.

J. Les (Chair): That's quite all right, Roger. We're not under huge time pressure at the moment. I think we have one more presenter, at least, on my list at the moment. Speaking for myself, I was very interested in what you have to say. It's also fair to say there are many things that you and I agree on. Certainly, if we can all work towards a future where the Indian Act is part of history as opposed to part of the present, I think we could make some real progress in this country.

It's not only the Human Rights Commission. There have been many other agencies and individuals who have commented negatively on the existence of the Indian Act. The treaty-making process is part of the process of working towards getting rid of the Indian Act. Frankly, I'm somewhat encouraged when I hear you suggest that ought to be one of our objectives. I'm not sure it serves much of any purpose today, recognizing, however, that it does still transfer a lot of funding. I'm not sure how much of it actually ends up in the hands of aboriginal people, but, nonetheless, there are issues that will have to be addressed in that transition. I think we all recognize that.

Thank you for your presentation. I'll open the floor for questions from Gillian.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Roger, for your very interesting presentation. I think there probably aren't many of us who disagree that the Indian Act should be in the

past, not in the present or the future. You made a comment about the reserves in that you yourself have 40 acres on the reserve that you can do nothing with. What do you think should happen with the reserves?

R. Adolph: First of all, I should have a say on that 40 acres, along with my family. I've been taught a different system being brought up concerning land. The real estate value in principle is not there. We don't look at it in the same version. However, in this modern day and age we have to address that. What is the answer? What's an option to that? I believe that's what treaty-making is about.

We can't go back and live like our ancestors did. However, the value system of our ancestors is still up here regarding land especially and regarding the resource and the environment. It's still there. To try to totally accept the real estate system into that way of life goes against our grain, because in our way of life you can't buy or sell land. It's like buying or selling our mother. That's how it is. Today we have to bite the bullet on our side to say: "Okay, we're in a new millennium here." Our value system must not be forgotten, but dealing with a monetary system as it is or the economic system of today, we have no choice but to get involved in that. Now, how do we do it with our land? That is something that we have to work out.

I have some ideas on it. You know, it's not just land. For example, in our negotiating table, when it came to land, water was identified as the most important item to be protected — water. Without water, none of us can exist — the animals, the trees — but that's attached to the land. As long as the water is looked after, then we can do things with the land and make money at it. That takes some creative thinking to do and some changes. I don't know if that answers your question.

G. Trumper: It would be interesting to hear at another time some of your thoughts on it.

D. Chutter: Thanks, Roger, for your valuable comments. You were going through the list of the principles that I believe are presently within government. One of them referred to private property. You mentioned that it's not the intention to take property away or displace people, but there is an interest in private property. Could you discuss that a little bit more? Do you mean, for legitimate interests, there's a desire to discuss that and perhaps compensate for that loss of interest?

R. Adolph: Okay, Dave. I think that's a good question. For an example, the one that I know about is a fact of history here. I come from the Fountain Indian reserve. In 1919, when the surveyors were coming through to re-survey…. The first survey of our reserves took place in 1892, but it was done very roughly, so they came through again in 1919. By that time, in 1919, there was a whole concept that had changed from originally back in 1892. In 1892 the concept of Indian reserves in our former people's time was that reserves would consist of the hunting and fishing territories that we rely on for survival. In our term, in our negotiations, we call it our survival territory, the territory that we identified that we want to negotiate. Now, within that territory there are private land holdings. We said: "Okay, we're not going to kick those people out." However, originally, right from the beginning, that was still our land.

With the provincial government coming and the joint Confederation in 1872…. After that, the provincial laws and provincial Crown land came about. Those lands were alienated from us. Back in that time, as well, we had let people in a lot of these lands. We allowed them to stay. With the coming of the B.C. laws on land, we eventually lost it.

That's one, Dave, which I think has got to be ironed out. In our area, it's much easier. It's going to be tough trying to do this in Vancouver with the Musqueams and the Squamish, and even on Vancouver Island, but it's still a historical fact, and it has to be ironed out. I believe, Dave, that money is on the table, but that's not the overall. I think the protection of the land is more important to us than money. Today, for example, if a private land owner has timber on his land, there's no strings attached. He can just go in with no code to follow. It's private land. Corporations are buying into private land today. We in this room all know that. They can go in and just take. Who's left behind with it? We are, within the communities. We're left with the damage.

It disturbs me, Dave, that today Ainsworth is laying off two shifts. My relatives are working there. They're all getting laid off. These are 30-year men working for that mill — down to one shift. It bothers me that this is happening. Here's people that have put 30 years into that mill and are getting laid off.

When I drive in from Fountain into Lillooet, there's oodles of truckloads of timber going elsewhere and maybe two coming in. I say: "Something is wrong here, somewhere. Why are our people getting laid off with all these truckloads of timber going outside of our community? Something's wrong." The ones that are here, the native and non-native people, are left holding the bag. At the end of it all, there's going to be nothing left for us.

D. Angus: My name is Don Angus. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to come. This is really appreciated from my standpoint. I'm trying to discuss with you some problems that I see historically and provide, I hope, some continuity with regard to what has happened in B.C. and what perhaps is going to be necessary to try to resolve a problem that's become a real source of, shall we say, fear in our community. As I see it, it's all linked together.

In any case, my background is as a longtime Canadian. Some of my people walked in from Pennsylvania in 1776. With the exception of working in Ottawa and

five years in the military, I spent most of my adult life in British Columbia. I have grandchildren here who want to compete for jobs on a level playing field and who, like me, will pay their taxes, do the work and hopefully serve their country if necessary. Some of my ancestors were involved in checking the Fenian raids. My own service time was World War II and Korea. My father and four uncles were in the First World War. My great-grandfather died in 1865 at the end of the Fenian raids. Having said this, I hope you'll understand that I'm trying to provide some continuity. We didn't get here by accident.

From the outset, the best intentions with regard to British Columbia were involved, and we have been in lockstep with that ever since. To ignore the fact that excellent intentions, the best probably in North America, were involved in British Columbia cannot be ignored.

I'd like to read my statement, if I may. I apologize for not having copies. I was going to run off some more. I didn't realize I should bring some extras. I will get some and bring them back, if I may. My printer ran out of ink. I'm in an embarrassing position.

The holding of a comprehensive referendum and the resolve to respond to that mandate with courage and in the best interests of all people in B.C. is the most important decision for B.C. since the colony was invited to become a province within Canada. B.C.'s inclusion made Canada possible and viable. Without her, perhaps the northern Prairies would have been a French-speaking Metis nation, and the southern sections of what are now the three prairie provinces would have been annexed by the States.

Canada needed B.C., but the reverse, then as now, was not the case. However, since Confederation, Ottawa has consistently ignored the terms under which B.C. entered the union. These terms included sole jurisdiction over all lands and resources. In conjunction with the referendum and its content and a review of how and why B.C. came into being as a colony, together with the knowledge that with and under the auspices of the British government…. The government of B.C. had worked out and had signed treaties with every band and group of Indians in the province. This was a major undertaking because throughout the province relatively small groups at war with each other was the rule. Many of these treaties, verbatim, together with related correspondence are contained in this book that I brought with me — this is available — called Papers Connected with the Indian Land Question, 1850-1875 and again in 1877. This is a reprint of archival records held in Victoria, and because the British government guided and approved, they too have these records. Ottawa does not acknowledge these documents exist nor that, by usurping B.C. authority, they are illegally involving themselves in land and resources that, by their own terms of Confederation and orders-in-council at the time and subsequently in 1912 and again in 1924, are exclusively and solely B.C. provincial jurisdiction.

I state that because we have federal negotiators coming into this district here. They're in closet negotiations that exclude the local, non-native people — negotiations that are essentially going to affect not only the livelihood but also the quality of life together with location. If there's no way of supporting yourself, it's pointless having your private property protected. You must, somehow or other, be able to feed yourself. Unless you have a source of independent income, that responsibility rests exclusively with you. It's an ongoing competitive situation, as my past life experience would seem to indicate.

Unless you are the beneficiary of federal largesse, B.C. has always been a hard place to earn a living. Perhaps the general public can be forgiven for believing that their and their children's interests would be respected and that Ottawa would honour federal commitments. B.C.'s law profession has no such excuse. They must belatedly undertake to glean the facts and the records, and make them available to the electorate in the upcoming referendum. The federal Supreme Court must also be encouraged to actually review their jurisdiction under B.C.'s entry into union. It is possible Ottawa does not have facts regarding treaties, etc., because Mr. Powell — he's been honoured, I believe, with a street named after him — the first federal Indian Affairs authority here, seems to have been an empire builder.

In some of his correspondence — and I'm saying nowadays we would consider it an attitude — he had a lot of contempt for his predecessors in the B.C. government here. He didn't understand that these men had worked with people in the Willamette Valley and around the country and had a much greater depth of understanding of a situation that he felt was simply a domain that he could exploit. I agree with the previous speaker, who said that out of this has grown a very restrictive Indian Act that is now to the detriment of all people, particularly in British Columbia.

He was an empire builder who had contempt for B.C. government men and their work, and Ottawa's records may be incomplete or fictitious. B.C. may have to use the notwithstanding clause to curtail Ottawa's involvement until a realistic settlement with finality is made. In the process, we must ask how South American countries, Mexico, even the United States handle their Indian affairs and claims. The United States has a different system of delivering support and has laws making all resident Indians American citizens. Here in B.C. we have people of 1/8 Indian who have status.

Somehow I don't think James Douglas would approve. Perhaps this anomaly ceases to be a factor if every resident citizen of more than two generations receives status. Historically Douglas and his men had witnessed the handling of native issues first by the Spanish and then by the miners who entered territories ceded by the French to Great Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht — the Louisiana Purchase, gentlemen, was British territory, and they went and resold it — and subsequently the Oregon Territory, where Indians were simply evicted. In B.C. Governor Douglas decided to equip and train the Indians to become part of and earn their way in mainstream society.

He himself was, as was his wife, Amelia, one-quarter Indian, but he recognized that self-sufficiency rested with the individual and that opportunity was needed. To that end, he and his men gave the best arable land or land of their choice — meaning the Indians' choice — to local Indians. He also tried to promote individual effort by curbing raiding and control of strongmen. Prior to Confederation his government set up reservations, now called reserves, based on the above as transitional locations where nineteenth-century community skills could be developed. The policy from the start of the colonial government was that everyone, including Indians, could homestead on an equal basis, and many did. Some do so to this day. The ranch at Canoe Creek is an example.

B.C. was a full colony when she joined the other colonies to form Canada. Only the Maritimes were defined areas. Quebec had enlarged herself but did not grab the Grenville country until 1912. Ontario's western boundaries were not fixed, and all of Alberta, Saskatchewan and part of Manitoba were a territory. B.C.'s terms of entry into Confederation were as an established colony with specific, defined jurisdictions, orders-in-council clarification and guarantees which did not apply to the territories, because they were not yet provinces. However, Ottawa has consistently treated B.C. as if the terms of Confederation do not exist. Russians were moving down the panhandle. Spain had renewed interest. The Chinese were making their way in numbers into the area, and Americans in greater numbers entered the colony. Had "54-40 or fight!" come to pass, Canada's prospects and those of B.C. Indians would have been much different. These facts and the discretion and earned rights of succeeding generations of hard-working B.C. settlers must be factored in.

B.C. and Alberta are now annually contributing tens of billions of dollars in have-not subsidies to wealthy Quebec. Our national payments to Indians are in excess of $8 billion. We should ask that administration and land jurisdiction of all B.C.'s reserves be returned to the province in exchange for cessation of contributions to Quebec. This might provide some relief for the B.C. taxpayer and provide benefits to the natives. More importantly, they would be here where they are citizens rather than out of sight, out of mind and, as aliens, literally controlled from 4,000 miles away.

The participation of B.C. citizens is long overdue. Research and publish the information, and then draft the referendum so that it intelligently reflects the root issues and allows the electorate realistic expression and constructive input into a management mandate.

J. Les (Chair): Actually, it'll be on the World Wide Web in just a couple of days, just as you've spoken it.

J. Les (Chair): That concludes the presenters for this particular hearing. I'd like to thank everyone who has joined us this morning either by presenting or by just dropping in to listen to the people who have presented.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS