Aboriginal Affairs - Issue No. 17 - Thursday, November 1, 2001

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		517
	T. Jones	517
	D. DeLuca	520
	W. Coulson	522
	A. Bachmeier	524
	C. McKinnon	525
	J. McLeman	526
	B. Wyton	528
	R. Hamilton	529
	C. Cootes, Jr.	531
	S. Paone	534
	J. Thornburgh	534
	R. Dennis	536

Chair:	* John Les (Chilliwack-Sumas L)
Deputy Chair:	Paul Nettleton (Prince George–Omineca L)
Members:	* Val Anderson (Vancouver-Langara L) Bill Belsey (North Coast L) Dave Chutter (Yale-Lillooet L) * Mike Hunter (Nanaimo L) * Blair Lekstrom (Peace River South L) * Dennis MacKay (Bulkley Valley–Stikine L) * Gillian Trumper (Alberni-Qualicum L) * Rod Visser (North Island L) * denotes member present


Witnesses:	A. Bachmeier Charlie Cootes Jr. Wayne Coulson (President and CEO, Coulson Group of Companies) Darren DeLuca Robert Dennis (Huu-ay-aht First Nation) Ron Hamilton Trevor Jones (Hupacasath First Nation) Cecile McKinnon Jack McLeman (President, Port Alberni and District Labour Council) Dr. Sergio Paone (Councillor, District of Tofino) Jack Thornburgh Bernadette Wyton

J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is John Les. I'm the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. My riding is Chilliwack-Sumas. I'm pleased to be here this afternoon along with all the other committee members and staff.

Before I ask the committee members to introduce themselves, I'll just make a few comments about what we're about today. In late August this committee was established by the Legislature 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 and title are respected.

Copies of 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 views from a range of British Columbians, and we hope to build interest and support for the treaty process. We've publicized our hearing process, which is now rapidly coming to an end. Tomorrow is our final day of hearings in Victoria. We will be accepting written presentations from people until tomorrow as well.

The hearings such as these will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff to my left. The transcripts are available on the committee website as they become available. The website address is www.leg.bc.ca/cmt. Following the public hearings, the committee will prepare a report of its observations and its recommendations to the Legislature. The report will be tabled in the Legislature, or if the House is not in session, it will be deposited with the Clerk by November 30. The report will be a public document once it has been tabled or deposited.

I'll now ask members of the committee and staff to introduce themselves, starting with Blair.

B. Lekstrom: I would also like to thank the people for coming out today. My name is Blair Lekstrom. I am MLA for Peace River South in the northeastern part of our province, and Dawson Creek is my home.

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

G. Trumper: Good afternoon. I'm Gillian Trumper, the MLA for Alberni-Qualicum. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my constituency assistants, Maryann Washington and Mark Salmon, who is sitting over there, and welcome the committee to Port Alberni.

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

V. Anderson: I'm Val Anderson, MLA for Vancouver-Langara, south Vancouver. Glad to be up here.

J. Les (Chair): All right. With those formalities out of the way, we can now hear from our first presenter, who is Trevor Jones.

By the way, while Trevor is making his way to the front, if you'd like to make a presentation and your name is not yet on the speakers list, please check with Dorothy at the back of the room at the registration table. Over to you, Trevor.

T. Jones: Good afternoon. I was born and raised in British Columbia, and so were my father and my mother, my aunts and uncles. I was raised with an extreme sense of pride and wonder about what it means to be from this beautiful place. My family has flourished in this rich, diverse, vibrant land. My family have logged, fished, mined, farmed and served the people of the land for what seems like a long time.

But time is only relative, and to the aboriginal inhabitants of this land, we Europeans are still a relatively recent phenomenon. Time and time again I hear from my aboriginal friends and elders that we white men take way too short a view of the time line in our planning windows. Their planning windows span eons, not years. Their wisdom is passed down from generation to generation and informs their oral history. This thread of knowing is now recognized by the highest court in the land as being of equal weight to written testimony and western science.

So what do we do now? I think we'd better start listening. You know, the aboriginal past is closer in British Columbia than almost anywhere else on the continent. Europeans began to arrive in significant numbers only in the 1850s. Not until the 1890s did effective foreign control extend to the last of the major aboriginal groups. In almost every community there are still elders who as children were taught by parents or grandparents who had grown to adulthood in self-governing communities, free of control by settlers.

Negotiated land claims with the first peoples of this province are not really about righting a racially based injustice. Sure, on the surface it seems like it may be about race, but the only race it's always been about is the race to plunder, to capture and to sweep up the riches of this great land and convert them into the consumable raw materials that feed the industrial machine. The best way to achieve our mad dash for the riches was to remove the people from the land. We settlers have done a great job of attempting to destroy a proud and ancient culture.

I just want us to recall some of our collective history. The Royal Proclamation of October 1763 recognized Indians as nations or tribes. It extended British sovereignty and protection over the Indians to the west of the existing colonies. It asserts that Indians are not to be interfered with, and it acknowledges the Indians as continuing to own the lands which they have used and occupied.

By 1876 many laws were combined to become the Indian Act, and post-Confederation Indian policy was based on the belief that Indians could be integrated with the majority community. On May 5, 1880, Sir John A. Macdonald stated in the House of Commons that government policy was "to wean them by slow degrees from their nomadic habits, which have almost become instinct, and by slow degrees absorb them on the land. Meantime, they must be fairly protected."

From 1880 to 1951 the Indian Act outlawed Indians from participating in the potlatch, the sun dance and similar cultural ceremonies across Canada. To many west coast first nations, the potlatch was the equivalent of the government, court and church. It was at this time perceived as an impediment to the implementation of the Indian Act.

In the late 1800s the Colonial Land Ordinance for the pre-emption of Crown lands stated — and this was law at the time: "Any male person being a British subject of the age of 18 years and over may acquire the right to pre-empt any tract of unoccupied, unsurveyed and unreserved Crown lands not exceeding 320 acres in the extent in that portion of the colony situated to the northward and eastward of the coast range of mountains and 160 acres in extent to the rest of the colony, provided that such right of pre-emption shall not be held to any extent to any of the aborigines in this continent."

First nations were limited to 20 acres per family of five, later reduced to ten acres per family, and in some areas a right to two acres. The total area of B.C. first nation reserves today comprises only about 0.36 percent of the total land area.

From 1927 to 1951 the Indian Act prohibited first nations from raising money and from hiring lawyers to pursue land claims. This denied them the fundamental right that every other citizen enjoyed in our democratic system. First nations were prohibited from voting in provincial elections until 1948. First nations were prohibited from voting in municipal elections until 1949. First nations were prohibited from voting in federal elections until 1960. First nations were not even considered Canadian citizens until 1963. As many of us already know, first nation veterans of war lost their Indian status, and they cannot claim any of their veteran benefits.

Our government forced them through law to accept government's charity. Removing them from their traditional diet, we introduced sugar and alcohol to the communities, killed off a few more generations and then, to finish them off, marshalled their children away and forced them into spiritually oppressive foreign schooling systems away from home and family. For heaven's sake, these children would be punished for speaking their own language or attempting to escape back to their families. As most of us know or maybe not all of us, the last residential school only closed its doors in 1984.

As we now contemplate further challenging the rights of this minority to the political whim of the majority through this referendum, I wonder out loud: have we not learned anything? I'm not proud of this history of treatment, and, yes, I am no longer a naïve, indoctrinated colonial school graduate. Why do we even call ourselves British Columbians? I've come to learn that this is actually an illegal misnomer. We are all living on stolen land.

What is it we are trying to achieve through a referendum on treaty principles? I thought our highest courts had already informed our society that we must be negotiating modern-day treaties. The treaty process was established to attempt to move this province into the modern era, where indigenous peoples are recognized as having a distinct right to the land and her resources. These rights are reflected in the Canadian constitution. These rights are reflected in the progressive rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, this province lags far behind the principles already established in the Supreme Court of Canada with regards to protection, interpretation and entrenchment of aboriginal rights.

Let's remember the Calder case, where the courts ruled that aboriginal title is rooted in longtime occupation, possession and use of traditional territories. In the Guerin case in 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Crown had a fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal people. It described first nations interests in their lands as pre-existing legal right not created by the Royal Proclamation, the Indian Act or any other executive order or legislated provision.

In that same year, of course, the Meares Island standoff right here in Nuu-chah-nulth territory…. The court indicated that aboriginal claims should be resolved by negotiations and by settlement in a reasonable exchange between governments and the Indian nations.

These court cases underscore the need for the province to avoid prolonged expensive legal battles and resolve disputes through negotiation rather than litigation. In 1990 the Supreme Court in the Sparrow case ruled that the Constitution Act provides a strong measure of protection for aboriginal rights. Any proposed government regulations that infringe on the exercise of those rights must be constitutionally justified. It further ruled that aboriginal and treaty rights are capable of evolving over time and must be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner. Governments may regulate existing aboriginal rights only for a compelling and substantive objective, such as the conservation or management of resources.

Rights evolve as Canada's understanding of the culture and people evolves. What is this ridiculous notion of achieving finality through treaties? The one great truth common to all systems of belief is that all things change. Impermanence is a given. Aboriginal

rights must therefore also be allowed to change. When it comes to rights, there is no such thing as finality.

In 1997 the Delgamuukw decision resulted in the courts defining that aboriginal title cannot be surrendered to the province where it has not been surrendered to or otherwise extinguished by the federal government. It remains an encumbrance on provincial Crown title. It also said that the province is able to infringe aboriginal title. It did set out a test for infringement on aboriginal title. It said that the action must be part of a substantial and compelling objective. It also said that it must be done in a manner consistent with the fiduciary relationship between the Crown and aboriginal people. Consultation will always be required, and compensation will often be required.

Under the 1995 federal policy, aboriginal groups are to negotiate self-government arrangements in areas such as health care, child welfare, education, housing and economic development. Negotiations will be among aboriginal groups, the federal government and — areas affecting their jurisdiction and interests — of course the provincial government. Because aboriginal groups have different needs, these negotiations will not result in a single model of self-government. The province must be at the table.

I urge you — no, I actually plead with you — to, rather than further tip the scales of justice, instead restore the social and legal balance by continuing with the existing treaty process. This is a noble task and one that must be understood at the very core of our beings — our hearts. We must purge ourselves and our communities of this dark legacy of cultural genocide by ushering in a future blessed with reconciliation — right action and intent and true willingness to embrace the richness of thousands of aboriginal people in this land by calling them friends and enabling them to become our rightful neighbours and, yes, even our landlords.

This province entered modern treaty negotiations over eight years ago. The purpose: for British Columbia first nations in Canada to establish a new relationship based on mutual trust, respect and understanding through political negotiations. As of one year ago, there were 51 first nations participating in the treaty process. There are 38 first nations in stage 4 agreement-in-principle negotiations and one first nation in stage 5 negotiations to finalize a treaty. We must stay the course. I was told by my elders that you never change the rules of the game partway through. You never play with a deck of cards partway through a hand, or you could get shot. In business you never change the terms of reference in a contract without the mutual consent of both the contractor and the client.

Well, we are on the cusp here in this province of changing the rules of the game at halftime and getting shot in the back as we insert a few wild cards in the deck while being sued for breaking a contract, because we're trying to change the terms of reference midway through delivery. What are we doing? We want certainty, but we don't want to do what is necessary to achieve it. We want economic investment and continued prosperity, but we're not prepared to acknowledge the encumbrance of underlying title on the natural resource base. We must wake up. We must stay the course of reconciliation.

It is clear that the only question that should constitute the referendum query is: are you willing to support a continued provincial role at the treaty table to restore peace and justice to this great land? The answer of the majority will be yes. Perhaps what is really called for here is a referendum calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee at least 50 percent first nations representation in the B.C. Legislature. Then maybe we would understand the legal reality and necessity of involving the rightful owners of this province in the governance of our affairs.

I do not want to confuse the object of today's consultation. I emphasize that the principles of modern-day treaties must entrench provisions for self-government, a return of a negotiated share of the land and resource base, certainty and dispute resolution processes. Let's get back to the table and hold our heads high. We need the resolve and heart to finish what we started. We are living on stolen land; we are living with a stolen dream. I, for one, want my three children to once again be proud to call themselves British Columbians.

D. MacKay: Trevor, thanks for your presentation. What you've told us today we've heard from other presenters as well — maybe not so eloquently. You said it very well.

I just wanted to question you on the one statement you made on the Calder case. If I recall correctly, the Calder case was split 3-3. There was no firm decision handed down by the courts. The seventh judge refused to make a decision, because he said there was a technicality in the way the case proceeded. So to use Calder as an example for where we are today is, I think, maybe unfair because the justices were split.

T. Jones: I guess the federal government was adequately convinced, because soon after the Calder case came down, as you know, they started treaty negotiations with the Nisga'a. Certainly, if it's good enough for the federal government, it should be good enough for the provincial government to convince them to go in a certain direction.

J. Les (Chair): No. We're out of time. We've given you a very generous allocation of time to make a presentation.

T. Jones: You're not prepared to answer a question, even though there are, I know, only two or three other speakers beyond me? Is the press aware of this? I want to know what act you are following in referendum. I've been following the proceedings, and my understanding is that you're not really sure what legislative mechanism will actually roll this referendum out.

J. Les (Chair): Those things, amongst others, will be determined by the committee once it's had a chance to digest all of the presentations that have been made to it and, I suspect, will appear in its report on November 30.

T. Jones: How do we have any confidence, then, that what we're actually presenting today will in fact influence an outcome if there's no legislative framework to follow?

J. Les (Chair): Like any public consultation process, the people conducting the hearings — in this case, this committee — take a look at all of the evidence that is presented to them and make recommendations. In our case we are making recommendations to the Legislature, and it will ultimately be up to the Legislature to decide how to proceed. That is not for this committee to decide.

T. Jones: Okay. So it might not be a referendum, then, under the Referendum Act.

The next presenter is Darren DeLuca from the Regional Aquatic Management Society.

D. DeLuca: Just for clarification, I'm not here on behalf of the Regional Aquatic Management Society.

I've provided a written submission, and I'll essentially just be reading from it. You can follow along.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the select standing committee. My name is Darren DeLuca, and I live here in Port Alberni. I'm addressing the committee as an interested individual, and my comments reflect only my personal views.

Firstly, I would like to comment on two areas of policy and program in which the province is now involved and then make specific reference to the referendum question. A brief background on myself. I've been involved in the treaty process since the early nineties, through the West Island RAC, which is the Nuu-chah-nulth treaty process. My primary interests are fish and wildlife, and I'm active in the sport fishery advisory board process and in the West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board process, on which I'll comment first.

The WCVI Aquatic Management Board is a treaty-related measure within the Nuu-chah-nulth AIP. The board has been in the development process for over four years, and just recently the provincial government has renewed its commitment to participate. That was through Minister Hagen's office. I wish to draw your attention to this pilot fisheries comanagement board. It's a potential solution to some of the strife that burdens the fisheries sector in our province.

Throughout many of your hearings presenters have identified fisheries as an area of conflict and concern. The federal government sees fisheries as a low-priority issue, yet for B.C. fishery is an important part of the social, cultural and economic fabric. B.C. has strong interests lying in fisheries policy yet lacks jurisdiction and influence in the policy and program that affect fisheries management.

The WCVI Aquatic Management Board is a multi-jurisdictional board involving federal, provincial, aboriginal and municipal governments combined with industry and environmental experts in the comanagement of the fisheries resources. Your government is now reviewing the WCVI Aquatic Management Board and the province's role. I urge you to give your full attention to this initiative and view proactively the opportunity to define the role of the province, first nations and communities in fisheries management at a local level.

I'll comment next on the Fisheries Renewal program. Not all solutions to native–non-native relations will come from the treaty table. One of the most successful partnership programs that the province has been involved in has been the Fisheries Renewal salmonid renewal program. Recently the province scrapped the Crown corporation in the interests of fiscal cost-cutting and, in my view, threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Fisheries need not only be the source of conflict; they can also be the tie that binds. The SRP program was deliberately structured to build native–non-native relationships and the development of common ground in the stewardship of fisheries resources. If you're truly interested in engaging the two communities in education and relationship-building, then I suggest that you revisit your decision to scrap the SRP program and find a way to maintain the program through the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection or other appropriate ministry. The B.C. Liberals have committed to a ten-year fish habitat enhancement program in the New Era document, and the SRP program is a suitable means to meet that commitment.

Finally, I'll address the referendum question. Treaty negotiations have put the province in the unfavourable position of negotiating aboriginal issues of land and resources which it believed it had already settled with Canada under the Terms of Union agreement. Many speakers who have addressed the committee have raised the Terms of Union agreement and question the province's role in negotiations and whether it should be observing costs previously agreed as settled.

The fact remains, however, that B.C. must resolve the land and governance issues before B.C. can resume business. In my view, the only realistic opportunity to resolve the issue in any reasonable time frame is to develop a two-table approach: a main table for broad common issues and a local table to resolve local issues with individual first nations.

The question that occurs to me is: at what table do we negotiate self-government and cost-sharing agreements — internally in B.C. or at a constitutional main table, where B.C. has something to gain from negotiations and where first nations can negotiate self-government and not cede, release and surrender the sovereignty of the aboriginal people?

I am of the opinion that B.C. will be in a much more advantageous position if it were to negotiate the constitutional issues at a national table. A third order of government should be negotiated with aboriginal people, which recognizes and respects the sovereignty of aboriginal people, the inherent right to self-government and the responsibility for fiduciary obligations of aboriginal people.

I believe that B.C. should act to reopen constitutional talks and address the issue of aboriginal self-government. It should work with the federal government to negotiate a national deal. In addition, B.C. should renegotiate its jurisdiction in respect to fisheries and offshore resources. In return, B.C. should agree to provide what provincial lands and resources are necessary for the resolution of local land claims.

This leads me to the referendum question. British Columbians should be offered a choice — A or B — of whether they wish to negotiate self-government and cost-sharing agreements under the auspices of the existing B.C. treaty process or whether they wish to engage in a more ambitious initiative of nation-building and resolution of longstanding grievances of both the native and non-native communities of B.C. in the arena of constitutional negotiations. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Darren, for your presentation. I think it's safe to say that you come from a slightly unique perspective.

J. Les (Chair): If I remember correctly the previous submissions that we've been hearing for the last month, you do approach it from a slightly different angle. Would I be correct in summarizing in a slightly different way what you have said in that perhaps we are trying to reinvent the wheel too many times over at individual treaty tables, and you feel that a more global approach for some of the issues would be more appropriate?

D. DeLuca: I'm not sure if it's reinventing the wheel, but there's certainly duplication. You're doing framework agreements with more or less the same things in them all across the province — some of the self-government issues. The province or the feds aren't going to be able to put different types of self-government agreements in each individual treaty. Certainly I would suggest that those are the types of issues that would be handled at a main table.

J. Les (Chair): Could you elaborate a little bit more on what types of issues you feel would be better accomplished at a more global arena?

D. DeLuca: Certainly, number one would be self-government — revenue-sharing. I believe that rather than receiving cash contributions as settlement, there should be revenue-sharing for the resources coming off all the land in the traditional territory. I think that for a political reason, the chiefs need to have, essentially, a "spiff" off all the land much like the Crown has a royalty off all the land, not just little corners of it. I don't believe that individual first nations are going to have the scale to develop taxation and revenue regimes for small communities. I think they need to work in a bigger scale.

J. Les (Chair): Just so I'm clear, you would propose that those negotiations happen at a national level?

D. DeLuca: Correct. The federal government needs a national deal. I've heard people here speaking about the reluctance of the feds to move this thing ahead because it creates problems all down the line, whether it's in the Yukon or in Ontario. I think the only way that you're going to get the feds onside on this is to build a national deal, or I think it'll drag over an extreme length of time.

V. Anderson: Following that question, what are the areas that you would suggest should be done locally, in your opinion, and what do you mean by locally?

D. DeLuca: I would consider local to be an individual first nation table, such as the Nuu-chah-nulth. In that sense you would use the RAC processes to look at issues like fisheries and forestry. I'm certain that regardless of revenue-sharing, there's going to be land involved. Which land and where would be part of those negotiations and discussions at a local level.

V. Anderson: Just to clarify, are you suggesting that in the local communities that are involved, the people from the local communities should be involved in those local decisions?

D. DeLuca: Absolutely, as is done now through the RAC process and other processes. What happens at RAC is that we're somewhat bound by provincewide or national-type policy things, whereas the role of the RAC is more to try and deal with specific local issues.

V. Anderson: So would there be certain principles, guidelines or areas of agreement that would be similar to all RACs across the province?

D. DeLuca: If you were to take certain issues and move them to a constitutional table, certainly those issues would be consistent across the province.

G. Trumper: Some of the communities have obviously got very divergent positions on certain local issues and feel that the RACs and the TACs, which are the municipal treaty advisory committees, haven't worked. I'd like your view on how the regional advisory committee has worked here. I'm still trying to figure out why they hadn't worked as well as I think they've worked here. I'd just like your view on how you think it has worked and where you think there are improvements.

D. DeLuca: I can only comment on the Nuu-chah-nulth and the West Island RAC. I think you need to remember the political environment that existed through the previous seven or eight years of the treaty process. It's very much my opinion that the political fortunes of the provincial government at the time had depended…. Maintaining power depended very much on aboriginal people, which put them in a huge conflict of interest at the treaty table. I think a lot of people within the RAC process were aware of that. That in itself, in a sense, damaged the whole treaty process, which is why I think it's moved so slowly. You had one government in there which was unaccountable — being the federal government, there's nothing you can do about it — and another government which was in a conflict of interest. This essentially left the RACs in a position of really being more like resistance, trying to buy time. If the issues put to the RAC were more specific local issues…. We spent a lot of time on the structure of negotiations, and very few of us are well versed on those types of issues — you know, my background's fishing. We were sort of out of our element to some degree going through that process, so we moved very slowly. I think the role of the RAC should be much more specific to the substantive issues in the area.

M. Hunter: Darren, thanks. As John said, you've come out from a little different angle. We've had advice before about global versus local issues and dealing with them differently. I'm intrigued by your constitutional proposal, but it's not clear to me how B.C. would be better off by getting into a constitutional conference in Union Station in Ottawa and all the stuff that goes on around them. Let's conceive of it as global, the big issues that could be dealt with separately. I think that's your major point.

How do you, given your experience, see local issues that would be concerned with your revenue-sharing approach as opposed to a taxation regime? If we're dealing with that at a big table, how are diverse local interests in B.C. going to get input? Do you see a super-RAC?

D. DeLuca: I think, first, the issue of moving to a constitutional table versus trying to deal with it internally in British Columbia goes back to the issue around the Terms of Union, where there was supposed to be an agreement in place and settled. It turns out now that a substantial amount of resources are going to be required to settle this question, so it seems to me that B.C. has a substantial amount to negotiate at that table. I would suggest that the fisheries resource is something that the province needs to be involved in jurisdictionally, and that requires a constitutional table to do that as well as other offshore resources — oil and gas, whichever you prefer.

As far as revenue-sharing, I think you're going to have to look at a provincewide formula that would share revenues from a territory on some sort of basis, whether it's per capita, a percentage of the stumpage that comes out of a certain territory or however you would want to do that. I think you need to have some provincial guidance that would show how it's going to work in an individual territory.

My view on revenue-sharing isn't just that you need to meet the political needs of the chiefs, essentially, whose territory that is. Sorry, I forget my comment there.

M. Hunter: No, you've answered the question. Thank you. You've introduced an interesting concept.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I don't see any other questions. I want to thank you, Darren, for making your presentation. As I said earlier, you've come up with a few new wrinkles that we haven't heard yet.

W. Coulson: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Wayne Coulson, and I'm the president of Coulson Forest Products. I would like to thank you for the opportunity of allowing us to share with you our experience in dealing with first nations as business partners in the coastal forest industry.

We're a privately held company, family owned, located here in Port Alberni. We employ 450 people and operate conventional and helicopter logging operations, lumber manufacturing operations as well as aviation. One of our companies, Hecate Logging, has been in existence for 17 years and is a 50-50 partnership with the Ehatteshaht first nations of Zeballos. Over the term of this relationship we had traditionally declared cash dividends back to the owners in our profitable years. However, as we became closer to our first nations partners, we found that we were failing miserably as a corporation, because the cash dividends going back to the band were not creating the job opportunities that the band members wanted.

There had been a number of good tries when it came to training band members, but the successes were few and far between. We committed the company to change that gave our social obligations the same weight as our fiscal goals. We set aside earnings to fund long-term training programs that contained a commitment to first nations people and emphasized helping them make a transition to growth not only in their work lives but also in their personal lives. The

Coulson management team works continually on the commitment begun by my father many years ago to further the social and economic needs of first nations people through partnerships and promote good business and capacity building within native communities.

Today we have business relationships in all parts of our operations with seven other first nations tribes on Vancouver Island. Our operations over the past decade had extended into southeast Alaska. Our main customer is an Alaskan native corporation called Sealaska formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Headquartered in Juneau, Sealaska has over 16,000 native shareholders and is the largest private landowner in southeast Alaska. Sealaska's principal investments are forest products, financial markets, telecommunications, entertainment, plastics, and mineral exploration and development. Sealaska Corporation's assets are derived from the aboriginal assets of the Tlingit and Haida Indians. Their total revenues place the corporation in the top ten native companies in Alaska.

In July we had the pleasure of hosting Sealaska's president and CEO, Chris McNeil, and other senior vice-presidents and board members. Sealaska saw this as an opportunity to share with local first nations leaders their post-treaty knowledge. We invited the co-chairs of the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council and other chiefs to our meeting. The meeting was honest and frank. Sealaska discussed the path that they had been down for the past 30 years since treaty settlement. Open dialogue was also forthcoming from local first nations leaders as to their pre-treaty challenges and what they see as very important post-treaty benefits and needs.

One of the voids that Sealaska was forced to recognize over time was their lack of focus on training their native shareholders for job opportunities that their large resource base had made available. This resulted in protests by native shareholders and subsequent lack of support by them for plant harvesting projects. Sealaska's failure to recognize the importance of investing operating earnings to train residents of the local communities when utilizing the resources of these communities caused problems for ongoing Sealaska operations.

This mirrored Hecate Logging's own experience with regard to capacity building within the local community in which it worked. Hecate, by sharing its commitment to change and giving its community obligations equal footing with efficient economic business success, was able to help provide a new opportunity for Sealaska based on a defined, long-term, community-based blueprint. At the same time, Hecate and local first nations leaders were also able to obtain a firsthand understanding of post-treaty successes and failures after 30 years of experience.

To conclude, I encourage all members of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to seek further information from your Pacific Northwest American counterparts as well as companies such as Sealaska Corporation who, I feel, have a direct knowledge base with regard to pre-treaty dos and don'ts that you should draw from before deciding the referendum question.

D. MacKay: Wayne, thank you for your thoughtful presentation. It's interesting that you mentioned the Alaska settlements because — correct me if I'm wrong on this — what they did in Alaska that we don't have down here is equality. I believe all the natives in the state of Alaska belong to a corporation. They're all equal shareholders in the corporation, so whatever moneys go into that Sealaska Corporation are distributed equally. They're all equal shareholders. That seems to be a different model than what we have down here. We have moneys at the present time going to the band, and it doesn't seem to get distributed to the rest of the band. There are still some people suffering, and there are some chiefs and elected officials who are living very, very well. The Sealaska model, I think, has some merit in it in that they're equal shareholders. Is that correct, Wayne?

W. Coulson: Yeah, there's actually tribes within the Sealaska Corporation, so there are chiefs and councils that operate independently of the major native corporation.

W. Coulson: There are shareholders, but the shareholder holdings that people have can be transferred to other family members. There are actually only so many shares that are under the Sealaska Corporation umbrella.

M. Hunter: Wayne, thank you for sharing with us your corporate experiences. Now I want to plumb that a little bit, if I might. One of the issues in this region has been the rejection of the AIP by the aboriginal side. To pick up Dennis's point that in any governance structure there are always going to be some people who don't agree with government…. We know that firsthand as MLAs. From your corporate experience dealing with the band that you've been dealing with, have you any observations you can share with us as to how we can move the treaty process forward? Any lessons you might be able to share that would avoid the situation we've seen here in the Alberni Valley in the last weeks and months?

W. Coulson: I think, Mike, all I can share with you is the experience we had when we had Sealaska come down and visit with us. There is an immense amount of opportunity from understanding just the process they have gone through to get to where they're at today.

I think my message is simply that there's a wealth of information across the line that I think we can draw on to help us answer some questions and maybe get us there a little bit quicker. Certainly, we've tried to open up that information flow between the people and the folks we deal with. Hopefully, our government will challenge themselves, with the U.S. government, and maybe we will start working from a model that's already been in play for some time.

M. Hunter: Can I just follow up on one detail? You talked about Hecate Logging and the distribution of cash dividends back to the owners. Did those cash dividends go to the band council, or were they distributed around the band members?

M. Hunter: Was that part of the problem that band members subsequently had — that the money was not finding its way into their pockets as shareholders in that company?

W. Coulson: We actually had board meetings in the communities. There was frustration between people living in the communities that they weren't getting jobs. We have worked very closely with the local IWA here in building those bridges, and I think that's one of the main successes in our company. We've been able to bring lots of different people to the table to find solutions. It hasn't been all our own. It's been the support of the IWA and the chief and council. We have a training program in play now that reaches far beyond eight hours at work. It's a job that's seven days a week and 24 hours a day, and we have a person dedicated and committed to making those necessary changes in trying to build a sustainable training program.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, there are two parts to it, it seems to me: the training or educational program, whatever term you want to use, in order that people can get the skills and experience to do the jobs that are available on the one hand and also a management partnership program on the other hand. Is there a balance of one being more important than the other, or do these have to work together? I hear both of those being raised.

W. Coulson: Our experience is that it's a crawl, walk, run. We have started from the grass roots. Some of our best employees now have had serious challenges in their lives, and we've had exit programs where they're invited back into the company. I think the biggest difference for us is that we funded the training program with our own money. Some of the programs out there didn't bring the accountability you need when you're out there. We spent several thousands of dollars per person to get employees that are good, hard-working contributors to our company.

G. Trumper: Wayne answered my question on the training a little while ago. Thanks very much.

A. Bachmeier: Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a presentation. My name is A. Bachmeier. I don't have a prepared large statement or anything. Just to clarify things, the standing committee's mandate on aboriginal affairs is to report on the nature of questions that should be used in a one-time, provincewide referendum on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations. Is this correct?

J. Les (Chair): We're people interested in a whole bunch of things. If you'd like to talk about something else, that's okay by us. You've got 15 minutes to do that, but what we're really interested in is what you think the types of things are that should be addressed in a referendum.

A. Bachmeier: In other words, there's going to be a referendum. It's cut and dried.

A. Bachmeier: I hope this hearing is not just to justify the fulfilment of a pre-election promise.

Anyhow, there are a few things. I'm definitely dead set against a referendum. All it will do is cause confusion and misunderstanding and alienate people within our society. It's not a good move. I think what you need to do instead of putting money into a referendum is to take it and sit down and do some honest, clear negotiations. Negotiation is the only ultimate way to settle any differences. They have a legitimate claim within reason. There are two sides to everything and extremists on both sides. In a referendum, one side far outweighs the other. I think it's a foregone conclusion what the outcome would be. Sit down and negotiate. It will ultimately come to a justifiable solution.

The issues have to be settled once and for all for everything. Economics and everything are at a standstill, more or less, until you can get a definite settlement. Who is going to invest their money in this province to any great degree not knowing what they're up against as to land, minerals, water? Who knows? That has to be settled first and foremost. The only way in my mind is to sit down. Surely you can negotiate a fair settlement for everyone. It doesn't all go to the first nations, and we don't claim everything either, but there is a just settlement which has to come about.

One thing I would like a clear explanation of is self-government. There are 51 different native bands or groups within B.C. Does that mean each one will make their own laws for everything or just in regards to, say, municipal taxation and so on within their territory?

These things, to my knowledge, have never really been definitely explained to the people of the province. Unless they understand these things, self-government means you govern yourself. You make your own laws, and you have your criminal law, your civil law, your taxation, whatever. That will never work. You cannot have 51 different laws governing any one thing plus provincial law, municipal law and federal law. It's an impossibility. It will never work.

They should definitely have a right to self-government, the same as a municipality does. When it comes to criminal and so on, it should be one law for everyone. Under the Charter of this country, the constitution, all criminal laws, or any law really, have to be administered equally to all people. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that. There are laws that were thrown out by the courts, abortion being one. It was not administered equally. You cannot have a law that says this to this person and that to that person. It has to be across the board.

As far as the other side of the picture, I haven't been in on negotiations or attended any of them, I'm sorry to say, but there are some awfully radical demands at times by a few. I'm not saying they're all that way by any means. They have legitimate demands, but when they say to me, "We claim everything," possibly including my land…. It says in this statement here, and always has, that private land is not on the table.

Many things were said the same way in NAFTA. Free trade — we don't have free trade; it's one way. What's said and what actually comes out in the end could be altogether different. It has to be clarified exactly what it is. It cannot be left to the imagination of people who then go and vote on a referendum. If you're not fully informed, how are you going to cast a proper vote? You don't really know what you're voting for.

As far as claiming everything — statements about land, that we want everything, that we may have to pay tax, I've even heard, on my house that I bought — that's going a little far. Are we definitely going to have within the negotiations at all times that privately owned land, holding fee simple title, is not on the table? That's basically what I understand it to be, but I hear other things. When you claim, like I say, everything — land, minerals, water, anything above the ground, anything below the ground, the total thing — within a negotiated area that is negotiated and settled, yes, they should have that, by all means, but not in the whole province. I have shares in many companies in this province and things. Does that mean they won't expand? They can't? They don't know where they're going until we get a settlement.

I don't think a referendum will settle anything. It will only confuse it more. My personal opinion is: scrap it. Go sit down and negotiate. You won't solve anything, referendum or not, unless you sit down and negotiate. Thank you very much.

C. McKinnon: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this debate. My main interest, of course, is in not only the children of the native people but the children of the nation and the children of the world.

My main involvement with the natives has been as a school trustee on the education committee and also as president of the Alberni Valley cottage industry society, which was a group formed by volunteers to provide jobs for the unemployed. Usually half of the unemployed in our groups were native men and women. From that, I was also president of the One Canada committee during the debate. Our motto was "One Canada for all."

I came across the proclamation of 1763, and I just wonder how many people have really read that document. I was quite concerned about it because it could create apartheid. We see what that's doing to many other nations around the world. When I read that document, I managed to get an appointment with Jean Chrétien, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, during the debate on the constitution. I took copies along. I arrived in Ottawa, and the first person I saw in the House of Commons was Marc Lalonde. I asked him: "Have you read this document?" No, he had not read it. I then met Ted Miller, who was the MP for Nanaimo-Alberni, and I asked him the same question. No, he had not read it. I get into Jean Chrétien's office and ask him the same thing: "Have you read it, sir?" No, he had not read it. They were getting ready to put it in the constitution, and they had not read it. I was really shocked.

From there, as a member of the B.C. committee on the debate on the constitution along with the Hon. J. V. Clyne and Chuck Connaghan and others…. That was why I made that trip to Ottawa, because I was really concerned.

In the constitution, section 15 says that we are all equal. As soon as you give one or two groups or more special privileges, that nullifies the whole constitution. That's why there's constant conflict. Somehow we have to resolve the problems and see how we can make things work by partnerships, as some have proposed.

I also remember about the health of the young people. Ovide Mercredi said on TV how concerned he was about the number of young natives who had diabetes. But it's not only the young natives; it's right across every culture. We should be more concerned about that in our schools, in our homes and in our communities.

On July 25 I wrote a letter. It's meant to be an open letter to Matthew Coon Come, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. It was in response to an article in the National Post on July 19, 2001, page 83, which said: "Chief of first nations straddles two galaxies." In that, he claimed that he was a Cree, that he was a Christian and, I believe, that he was a chief.

I say to all the native people, all my fellow Canadians: "Your brother in Christ, it takes courage to proclaim being a Christian amidst the godless socialism that we are witnessing today." I am a Christian, I am a Canadian, and I am a doer. To me my parents are my

heroes, because they endured untold hardships in raising the family. I was fortunate to have both parents at home to teach me how to live as a good, responsible and loyal citizen to God, family and the Earth.

I can relate to you being born in a wood-framed tent, as I was born in a sod shack. The Métis people had helped my parents build it to shelter our family during the harsh cold winters. I was born in 1921 and was four years old when we moved to our first wood-framed house. It was not as cosy as the sod shack, and we would wake up in the winter mornings to find ice on the bucket of water in the kitchen. Those were the days of the outhouse and Eaton's catalogue. Also, every bucket of water had to be hauled in, and in the winter we melted the snow to wash clothes and for baths.

I recently attended a reunion of Val Marie, Saskatchewan, near where the sod shack was. I had the opportunity to stand on Sec. 21, Tp. 4, Rge. 13, W. 3 in Saskatchewan, which was my birthplace. I called it Cecile's land. I had the opportunity to meet the new owner. We lived on that farm and always managed to have food on the table, thanks to the cows, chickens, geese, ducks and the harvest from the garden. Always, my parents were able to teach us how to live, how to survive, and these are the important things for our children today. We learned how to live by hands-on doing, as exemplified by our parents — how to be self-sufficient and always remember daily to thank God for our many blessings.

Today we spend billions to preserve the habitat for the wildlife, birds and fish. We designate dozens of parks for their natural habitat. Why not as much for the human child? We have the knowledge at hand, but we need the dedication, perseverance and hands-on family living to provide the development of the whole child physically, mentally and spiritually.

Computers and TVs cannot replace parents. Also, we can choose not to be slaves to consumerism, drugs, alcohol, perverted sex, gambling and junk foods. A nation can only be as healthy as its family units.

Furthermore, we need to plant a billion mixed trees on each continent immediately — and I've been writing that to Ottawa for the past six years — to stop the floods and soil erosion. When we abuse nature, it fights back. Truly, there are jobs for everyone if we were doing what's needed both for our children and for the Earth. There are jobs for everyone in the proper care and rearing of our children and in restoring planet Earth.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Cecile. Are there any questions? Thank you for coming this afternoon.

J. McLeman: I didn't expect to get up here this quick, so I wasn't even ready.

J. McLeman: My name is Jack McLeman. I got a call and was asked to come and represent the Port Alberni and District Labour Council. We haven't had a meeting, and I wasn't really sure what your question was, so I've done my best to put something together on a referendum and give you our opinion on fairness and on human rights. There's a copy there. You can follow along.

I'd like to thank you for taking time to consider our position on holding a referendum of some sort on first nations treaty negotiations. I'm not sure how the results of any referendum would stand up in the Supreme Court, but I will make this presentation presuming they will not overthrow the results. I put that in because they seem to overthrow quite a few things.

First, I question the right of the non-native majority to vote on the basic rights of the native minority. The same goes for any minority group. It does not matter what I or other union members think of those rights. They do exist. If we start dealing with these minority rights, what will be next? The rights of certain ethnic groups? There is no end to how our prejudice could justify a referendum on someone else's rights. We say no to anything taking rights away from anyone.

I might just digress here for a moment. I have a lot of experience with this happening in the workplace, where some people would like to sometimes take a vote and say: "Aw, gee. Let's change some rules." Those rules would hurt some of the other people in the same workplace, and we can't permit that to happen. That's one of the concerns I have if we do have a referendum. I know you're here asking for the wording for a question. Well, I'm not Solomon. I can't give that to you, but I'm very concerned about the wording.

Second, if a referendum is to be held, and I presume it will be, how do you intend to deal with the divisive run-up campaign? I believe it will be divisive. The lack of tolerance is already becoming evident in our own community, and that's not just in one group or on one issue but on many. It will get much worse, and the hurt may not heal after the referendum is over. I believe that is a cost we may not want to pay. The comment has already been made about investment in our province. We need lots of it right now, and people don't want to come because this issue has not been settled.

Third, do you know at what point you're going to hold the referendum — before or after we have agreement-in-principle? If we turn down the agreement, then what? Do we revert to the constitutional rights of the first nations people or the Supreme Court of Canada? It seems to me that with treaties, we can get first nations into the mainstream of society and put us all on an equal footing. A referendum, with all its possible problems and unknowns, could stop that happening.

Fourth, is it worth the cost? Our B.C. economy is almost on the rocks now. Just this week we received another body blow from our friends the Americans. We can't afford the cost of a referendum now, especially if it doesn't guarantee to give us the peace and prosperity we should all be receiving from treaty settlements.

This is the one time that the money actually comes from central Canada to British Columbia. The cash payments that will come from the federal government will help the local economies of cities like Port Alberni. Also, the treaties so far have eliminated tax-exempt status for those earning an income on the reserves. That may not affect many, as the poverty levels of first nations communities are very high, but it will assist the general economy of the country.

In closing, I'd like to express my wish and that of the majority of organized labour to not have a referendum and to negotiate as openly as possible to establish treaties.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Jack. In your second paragraph you mention minority rights or aboriginal rights a number of times. I'm not sure how often we've said this over and over in various hearings that we've held around the province, but this isn't about aboriginal rights. We recognize those. Those are recognized in the constitution.

J. Les (Chair): What this is about is not determining what the rights of aboriginal people are. It is how we are going to negotiate modern treaties and what the guiding principles should be as we move forward and try to do that. There's a significant difference there.

J. McLeman: I hope that your wording does not infringe on anyone's rights. I know that my rights are being infringed on right now, quite heavily, as a worker in this province. I'm very concerned about all of them.

M. Hunter: Perhaps I could just pursue that, because I do appreciate your presentation, Jack, and putting it together quickly. I know that can be difficult with a group of people that probably have diverse views.

On the issue you raise in point 3, "Do you know at what point you are going to hold a referendum?" the very clear intention is that this referendum will be held to inform the provincial position on treaty negotiations and that negotiations will go forward with a mandate in which the people of British Columbia have had a say. We're not talking about post-AIP determinations by people of what that AIP or final treaty might say. That's the job of the Legislature and the Parliament of Canada.

M. Hunter: Agreement-in-principle. I think it's important that we take this opportunity so that you can go back to your members and your colleagues in the workplace and explain. While I recognize and respect the views you presented, I do want you to leave here with a clear understanding of what we can tell you about the process as we understand it as members of the Legislature.

With your experience and as you are well aware, AIPs were not…. Sixty percent were turned down by the NTC AIP. Have you any suggestions as to how we can improve the process? We've been negotiating for eight years. You've certainly been involved to some extent as a third party; I was as a third party. We've spent eight years. A huge amount of money has been spent. Do you have any thoughts on how the process could be not modernized so much as made more effective to get to the end result?

J. McLeman: I think that the problem — and I'm only talking as an individual here — was expressed fairly well by the second speaker, DeLuca. We're trying to do too much in one corner and not trying to get enough in. Whether you want to go national or not…. I think that would take forever and then another couple of days on top of that.

First of all, everyone's got to agree that they're coming to the table. Someone not coming to the table is left out. They've got to get to the table. You've got to be there. You cannot be pulling each other apart. I mean, there's segments I have to deal with in society, and we've all got to get together. Somehow or another we've got to agree.

Negotiation has always worked, in my experience. It comes to a conclusion whether I like it or not. Sometimes I lose negotiations; sometimes I win. It works; I like it. As long as everyone's willing to negotiate, something comes out of it.

G. Trumper: Just following that up, last week there was a survey amongst aboriginal people in Canada. Self-government was certainly on the lower end of their list for the things that were important to them. It was health, the economy, poverty and those issues. Last night, I don't know how many watched Bill Wilson on Voice of B.C. He intimated that that probably was very true.

So the comments have been and the feeling has been that in getting to the end of the road on our treaties, one of the ways we should do it is by doing separate

agreements on separate issues — getting some agreements in, whether it's land issues or fisheries or health. Do you see that as a way of doing it in incremental bits, and the signing of the treaty being probably the icing on the cake?

J. McLeman: I can't see that as being a problem at all, because some of those sectors are working together quite well right now. Wayne Coulson was here and explained what the union he and I belong to is doing with first nations people. It's started to work. It looked like at first it wasn't going to. Now it is. I think it's successful. I'm happy with what I see. Unfortunately, we're all getting out of work right now. If I was sick and hungry, I wouldn't give a tinker's darn about the self-government part. I'd want to get it looked after first. That would not be high on my list. But I'm sure it is high on some lists, because maybe that's why the sick and hungry are there. I don't know.

B. Wyton: I just have a simple message, and it's similar to others presented here. I do not think the referendum is appropriate at this time in the process that we've been engaged in. I'm really concerned about the demonstration that's happening right now outside. I don't know if any of you engaged with the first nations people as you came in. But I'm very concerned about what that demonstration is about and what it means.

What's the goal of this process, and what's the goal, ultimately, for the referendum? If you insult the people that you need to negotiate with, what hope is there for any meaningful settlement? It seems that the people outside are very unhappy about us being in here.

There were words brought up today — confusion, misunderstanding and alienation — that would come with pursuing a referendum. I agree with that. I agree with Jack McLeman's points that he made along a similar vein.

I'm really concerned about problems that there have been with the treaty process — with the amount that's gone under the bridge and the amount of money we've spent. I think we should all be concerned about that, but it seems like going to referendum is not really going to deal properly with those issues. We need to have the original parties sit down to sort those things out.

I'm also concerned with the native leadership and the amount of time and energy they've spent in the treaty process. It does take them away from more local issues within their own communities. So we all want to see the process come to some fruition.

I personally haven't been involved in the treaty process over the last years, but I remember when it first got started in Port Alberni. I was looking at some of the stuff. This was a notice on a public forum — October 20, 1994. The community was really excited, tons of people came, and they all got hyped up. Over these years it seems that — I don't know — that energy has been lost somehow. We need to address that.

This was a paper that was distributed at the same time by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs: Important Events Leading to Treaty Negotiations in B.C. I'll just go right to the end of the list here. The last two entries are 1993: Delgamuukw appeal. B.C. Court of Appeal recognizes continuing existence of aboriginal rights. June '94: GitxsanWet'suwet'en first nations and province of B.C. agree to suspend litigation for one year. Both parties agree to try and settle disputes at the negotiation table instead of in the courts. We were told that getting out of the litigation process and dealing with issues was really important, because we were wasting so much time and money in the courts, and the provincial economy was very unstable because of that very unstable position.

It seems to me that going to a referendum process now is going to land us back in that realm of litigation and perceived instability. We can't seem to come to any agreements on the problems at hand.

Another thing that was distributed then was Treaty Making: The First Nations Summit Perspective. There was a message signed by Grand Chief Edward John, Chief Joe Mathias and Chief Robert Louie, June '96. There's a little summary here about the process:

Now, it seems to me that if things were set up like that and the BCTC is the keeper of the process, they should be the ones directing process at this point, if it's failing. It's a trilateral process, so those three groups need to be at the table dealing with these kinds of issues. I don't think that you can fracture it and have the province set off on a new direction halfway through the game. It doesn't make sense.

You talked about the guiding principles and that it's necessary to address those. If the BCTC has not been able to usher in good guiding principles in the last eight years, I don't feel very hopeful that a one-time opening to the public will.

Later on in this address they talk about good faith: "For our part, we remain strongly committed to the process of good faith negotiations." My biggest concern here is that the first nations people are going to feel that what we're doing here right now is not in good faith. That's serious; that's serious for a province.

The very last line that they have written is: "The time to work together is now." That's going back to 1994 and 1996. If what we're doing here is perceived as not working together anymore, we're in serious trouble. That's my message.

V. Anderson: I just wanted to comment that you may want to get a copy of the BCTC annual report that was just put out. They have summarized the difficulty of where the situation is at the moment. I think it would be helpful if you followed up, because it would give you what we're struggling with.

Our concern is to hear questions. We've had a change of government. People were told, prior to the change in government, that the process was not working and that at least part of the problem was perhaps the lack of principles or lack of stand for the provincial negotiators. What we are seeking are principles that the people of B.C. feel would give strength to the negotiators in continuing to negotiate. That's what we'll be doing.

B. Wyton: As I say, I'm not very well versed in recent developments, so that is a good suggestion for me. I think I'm part of the public that's been lost in the process over a very long period. They're often perceived as very boring negotiations — you know, they go on and on for hours — and that's part of what's lost the public.

I would feel a lot more confident if there were first nations people sitting here at the table to help direct us for the future, because we do need to deal with the process.

G. Trumper: Thank you, Bernadette, for your comments. One of the comments you've just made raises a question. You said yourself that you really hadn't been involved and that it was a very slow process to get involved, to understand what was taking place. I'm the first one to say that it has been a very long process. Trying to engage third parties in being involved in it has been difficult. Do you have any suggestions as to how to engage others, outside the three main parties involved, on the issue of treaty?

B. Wyton: Well, no, I'm not sure right off how to address those issues. I know that initial energy…. Just looking at this reminded me of it. There was a real commitment to that. I don't think that the fault is on any one particular side. I think all the people negotiating got so swallowed up in the time and effort that they all, including first nations people, kind of left their public behind. There was a big gap between…. The level of detail in the issues at the table was in itself a bit alienating. I certainly wouldn't be an expert, or anything close to it, in trying to direct people, because I need to direct myself.

My concern is that there seems to be a feeling of alienation now in this process. Because we've gone so far in that process under that set of rules, to switch and do this part right now is inappropriate. That doesn't mean not to include the public, but it seems to be interfering with the process at a significant level.

Let's see here; I'm just reading something: "Individual treaty tables need to devise processes that will give out timely information and provide a forum to raise and address concerns of members of the public. This is key to a successful treaty. Effective education strategies need to be put in place so that people understand our rights as first nations" — that's not me speaking — "as well as understanding the treaty process. So much more can be done that would benefit everyone involved, but we need to find those solutions jointly, not by having a referendum."

I think the people who are involved from the beginning need to continue doing that homework. This is kind of like shifting into a different gear and going in the wrong direction. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Anyone else? Thank you, Bernadette, for coming. We appreciate that very much.

The next presenters are Ron Hamilton and Charlie Cootes Jr., who are presenting together, I understand.

I have a single concern that I want to express to this committee today with regard to the plebiscite — the vote — that's going to be given to the public around the treaty process and whether to continue with it. In order to make that concern known properly, I think it's proper for me to give some background to that. That may take a bit of time. I know how much time we have, so I'm going to try to race through this quickly but still make my point.

To begin with, I think I should say something about my background. As a teenager I was a member of an organization called NARP — Native Alliance for Red Power. I grew up at a time when everyone in my community felt like they didn't have power. Lots of people got drunk and got violent with people who had white skin, blond hair and blue eyes because they wanted to exercise power in one form or another. It was a nasty time to grow up in this town.

As a young person I thought that drinking and being violent wasn't necessarily a very good way to achieve some kind of advancement for myself. I joined the Native Alliance for Red Power because people were talking about social change. People were talking about adjusting the social relations in this country, and people were talking about that in an intelligent way, always involved in groups. I was very drawn to that. I like community processes.

I'd like people here to know that at the height of my involvement in the Native Alliance for Red Power, the small group that I belonged to — the 40 or 50 of us who came from the Island and regularly met with people in Vancouver — used to meet with the Black Panther Party in the United States. We met with people who are today called terrorists. At the time that I was about 18 years of age, I was involved in a plot to shoot Trudeau, who was then the Prime Minister of this country. I want to say that just to let you know who you're looking at. And no, I am not Osama bin Laden. I'm not a raving idiot or anything else. But at the age of 18 I was incredibly angry about the way things were going on in my community, in this place where I was growing up.

When I was a boy, children from my community were forcibly being taken from their parents and their homes and put into Indian residential schools. They were being taken off Indian reservations and put into Indian schools. The people in my community were very clear about what those schools were doing to us, and people were beginning to try to organize around shutting those institutions down. I was involved in shutting two of them; I'm very proud to say that. I'm proud to say that I went into classrooms where teachers were actively engaged in what they were doing in Indian residential schools, and I said to them: "Get out of here. Go home. Go somewhere else, but get out of our lives." That's the way I felt.

I grew up in Port Alberni at a time when we were afraid to do almost anything that was really us. My late uncle and I used to steal around by dark and set trees in the water to collect herring eggs, because if we got caught doing that in daylight, Fisheries officers would arrest us and we'd end up with a fine. Not terribly long after the time that I was illegally doing that with my uncle, I saw Canada legalize herring fishing, where hundreds of thousands of tonnes were caught and stripped of their roe, which was sent to Japan. The fish were thrown away as garbage before environmentalists finally woke Canadian politicians up to the waste and said: "You have to stop that." They then began to make fertilizer and feed pellets for mink out of that herring.

As a five-year-old boy I was brought home to my mother's house by an RCMP officer because I was carrying a single sockeye off-reserve and with its nose clipped off. The nose clipped off meant that it was Indian sockeye as opposed to a real sockeye. And Indian sockeye were meant to stay on Indian reserves with the Indians. Well, my aunt was married to a non-status Indian, and my mother said: "You go take this to your auntie. She loves fish." The cops stopped me on River Road, brought me back to my reservation and scolded my mother for allowing me to take a fish to my auntie. That's the time that I grew up in.

I also grew up in a time when my mother, who bore and raised 12 children who all do something in this community — none of my brothers and sisters are on welfare — was not allowed to vote. That's a significant fact and has much to do with why I'm here in front of you people today saying what I have to say.

I grew up at a time when not just children but everybody in my community was afraid of the RCMP. One of my brothers, in my eyesight…. This is not hearsay; it's not a story handed down to me. I saw RCMP officers kicking my late brother's face around in my mother's kitchen. I saw blood spattered on the white walls, the white floor and the white ceiling of my mother's home because my brother was a drunken Indian asleep in bed. The RCMP came on the rumour that there was a drunken Indian in our house, and at that time we weren't allowed to consume alcohol. My mother said: "My son's asleep in bed. He's not bothering anyone." Well, they broke a bunch of bones, and after a year and a half of legal process, my mother had no sense of justice. That goes on today. We continue to be afraid, many people in our community, of the RCMP.

When I was a boy I felt, like most people in my community, I think, essentially helpless and powerless. I don't feel that way today at all. I feel like I have a right to speak my mind and, hopefully, get some answers to concerns or questions that I have with the political process that runs much of what I do in my life.

Now to get directly to my concern. I'm concerned that in the past, people from my community — my mother and people of her generation, my grandparents and people of their generation, right back to the time of contact — have felt like their interests, their needs, their wants, their way of life are somehow or other of separate value than the values of the people who lie around us — that we're absolutely distinct and separate people. I want you to know, all of you, that I am not a Christian. I also want you to know that I am not a man of the devil. I'm a completely real, living human being. I have a right to a quality of life. I have a right to be concerned that my children grow up without being afraid of their teachers because they're white. I want my children to grow up without being afraid of RCMP officers. I want my children not to be afraid of a group of well-dressed white people who come to their community to determine their future.

It's important for you people who are sitting here trying to find a language to put a question together to put to the public…. This is my concern. It's important for you to find a way — if you're going to do that, and it seems like your Premier is bent on doing it, is committed to doing it — to find language that does that without in any way, shape or form ending up being yet another example of the tyranny of the masses. That's really what my community is afraid of today. It's a huge fear, and it's well founded. We've not been treated well in this province. I don't want to run through the social litany attached to the word "Indian" for you. You all know it very well, I hope, by now. We don't need to do that, but you as a committee need to be sure that if you're going to word this question to be voted on, you word it in such a way that the end result isn't going to be the tyranny of the masses.

If that does happen and people say all over British Columbia, "No, in fact, we do not want this to continue," then what you're going to have is a whole bunch more young people like me who are 18 years old and fed up to their ears with the tyranny of the masses. That's not a threat; I'm just trying to be realistic. I think that young people today are much better informed about how to harm, how to destroy, how to get at, how to hurt other people. I honestly believe that a lot of young people in this province are frustrated. If this referendum goes through and the people in my community feel the sting of the tyranny of the masses again, I honestly believe you're going to have young people who are going to want to do something nasty to get back at that system. They are going to feel, yet again, outside that system, alienated by that system, and they're going to want some retribution for what's gone on.

That's what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that I'm concerned that you people don't go away and construct whatever you're going to construct so that it ends up being yet another example of the tyranny of the masses. There are many, many more people following behind, where I come from, who want to see social relations in this country on a better footing than they are on now.

C. Cootes Jr.: I do. Thank you, John. First I'd like to say that I am Uchucklesaht. My home is in Homais, yet I currently reside here in Port Alberni. I want to make it clear that I don't represent anyone other than myself and my young son Cameron, here today, with what I have to say.

What I do want to say is that my uncle Ron shared with you some things, and one of the most important things he shared is that he is not depending on the government in any way. He is not on welfare, and his family is not on welfare or anything of that sort. He is an independent, hard-working man. I admire and respect him tremendously, and I have to say that he has given me the strength to sit here today and address you people.

Unfortunately, some of my family are on welfare. Some have not taken advantage of opportunities and furthered their education levels and prospered like other British Columbians.

The message I want to deliver here today is that as a young person, I'm hopeful that this treaty process will produce some benefit to the younger people — my generation, which is one generation out of the residential schools. That's who I am. My father spent 12 years in a residential school, and I didn't spend a day, luckily, due only to where we were in history. I am thankful to folks like Ron who essentially changed history for me.

The treaty process, while it is flawed throughout, given where we sit already…. The mandates of negotiators are unclear, and the lack of understanding by British Columbians in general has, I believe, produced a racist attitude. It's only contributed to all the other factors that native people in this province face every day when we send our young people off to school.

I had hoped that this treaty process would provide for our people some mechanism to give them some surety and — I'm going to use some words from other people I admire — a good Christmas and a sense of worth in the larger community apart from our traditional villages. We deserve that. I say we are good enough. These are values that I want to instil in my son. It is hard to do when he is faced with racism in schools, on the streets and in the playgrounds.

What the treaty process, I had hoped, was going to produce was business opportunities with my first nation that would allow a higher employment factor, for one, and business participation by my first nation. Ancillary to that would be employment. We've heard other speakers here today talk about employment and what worth that has to the native people. It is huge.

Given our history and that we were removed from regular society in the earlier part of this century, we have not evolved in this new land. British Columbia is not that old, and we are continually evolving. Now we are evolving into a technological era where I want my son to be able to keep up and be at the front of the pack and be able to prosper and provide for his family which ultimately will come. We all know that. This treaty process is what I believe can deliver it.

I think I agree with a lot of what earlier presenters have said. We are changing the rules midstream. While in my employment I do have a technological job — I analyze things and look at things — I cannot fathom why we are doing this. I know words like "unilateral," which might be what is occurring here. We have "tripartite" and "agreement." We can sit here and play simple word-association games and look at what's going on here, and it does not make sense to me.

My message — I'll conclude and say that it is a hopeful one. I hope that the product of this standing committee will be intelligent questions that everyday people can understand and not be convoluted in a political agenda that is not their own or that they may not necessarily agree with. I think these questions must be aimed at young people, for sure, and be understandable. I know there are 20 different ways to ask a question, and subject to interpretation, a person may not even be sure which way they would answer, depending on how the question was framed or delivered or asked. That's the message I bring. It's a message of hope, in that I hope this treaty process can do what it was intended to do, what it was designed to do and what others before me wanted it to do.

V. Anderson: Thank you, both of you. I think your presentation today is extremely timely, because we've been listening for a long time, and sometimes you can get caught up in theory. You've brought us back down to Earth, and I want to thank you. You've shared some of the history through which you have come. At the same time, you've presented the history for your son about where you want to go and that the youth are an important element of where it's going at this moment. Yet many of the youth are not involved in the process of treaty discussions. They're like other people; they're standing outside of it. Others are doing it at other levels.

Do you have any suggestions as a sample, from the point of view of your community — I'm not just meaning aboriginal; I mean the community in which you live and work and in which your son goes to school — of the type of question and how it would be worded to give us a specific understanding of what you were saying about it being simple and straightforward so that people could understand it? If you had a suggestion in that way to illustrate for us, I think it would be helpful. Even if you haven't now, if you could send it to us, it would be helpful. If you have it now, fine, but if not,

C. Cootes Jr.: Val, you asked the question, and I'll take a stab at what would be helpful with this referendum. I would say your committee should maybe consider how you're going to deliver the question and how you're going to tabulate the results. I know it's going to be based on a vote. You may want to consider regionalizing these referendum questions. I can tell you that my nation does not represent 5 percent of my traditional territory. My nation represents considerably more in population than 5 percent.

That is one suggestion I would make: don't consider just a straight popular vote on this issue. You may want to regionalize it and look at it that way and somehow allow that to be involved in your negotiators' mandates: what the people in my area want to form the basic principles of treaty negotiations.

G. Trumper: I just wanted to make a statement. I want to thank you both very much for coming. I know that many of the first nations leadership have boycotted what we're going through. We recognize that. At most of the sessions we've had, we've had representations from first nations who may not agree with where we're at, but who have certainly made some really thoughtful presentations on where they think the treaties should be going and on some of the answers that they want and the direction that they want to go. I would thank both of you for coming. I know Ron well, and I know that both of you speak from within yourselves in making your presentations.

We really do appreciate you making the presentation. I know there are those who would not even come and listen to many of the discussions that are taking place. We've heard everything. We've had some I probably wouldn't want to hear again from either side of the spectrum, and yet a large majority of the people who have made presentations have really given us a lot of food for thought and probably made our job very difficult, as a matter of fact. We have a great challenge ahead of us.

G. Trumper: For the committee, if you don't know, Ron is a very talented artist. Some of his work is outside the museum, if you have a look.

B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Ron, Charlie. More of a statement, then I'll get to the question. We talk about fear, and you related that from the youth. I think there's fear amongst everybody that we've got to get on with this. It's a fair statement that the process we're working under now, I guess eight years later, hasn't been effective, in my view. I'm looking at the process. We're sitting here as a legislative committee, one that should help the process, not instil fear. I think that's the communication issue we all have to work towards.

The basic principles, I'll say, that the government has been taking and working under are flawed. That's why we're going to the people of British Columbia to say, "Look, we're asking you. We're going to try and coordinate questions as a committee and take them to the Legislature to go to the people," so we can get our act together. That's really how I view it. As Members of the Legislative Assembly we have a job to do on behalf of all British Columbians. I don't care who you are. Representing everybody is what it's all about.

My question would be: in looking at the system and the process we've worked under, would you agree that it's flawed and that we have to find some method to move it ahead in some way? If that's the case — I guess the issue is really communication and how we perceive this referendum — I see this as one that is a positive for us and hopefully first nations. I guess they aren't seeing it the way I see it, as a positive. It could be looked at as: "Jeez, finally they're going to British Columbians to get the basic principles so that they can then come to the table and negotiate in good faith."

There is no doubt in government's mind that aboriginal right exists. This is not about negotiating or not negotiating treaties. This is about finally getting it right so that we can come and bring a resolve to this for everybody. I know that's more of a statement than a question, but I like to simplify things. I see it as a positive move. I guess maybe we have to communicate that and, with your help, get an understanding and communicate it to all British Columbians.

R. Hamilton: Is it possible for one of the questions to be: are you, as a citizen of British Columbia, in favour of transferring an adequate land base to the individual groups being treatied with, to create surety for them economically? Is that a good question to put in your referendum?

B. Lekstrom: You know what? That's recorded by Hansard, and yeah, those are the things we're looking for. I can't say that'll be on there, but those are the exact issues we wanted to be open for discussion to find something to be able to put on the question or questions out to the people of British Columbia.

Charlie, I think you hit on something of vital importance. Don't convolute the questions. They've got to be simple. They've got to be to the point. We've had other presenters say: "Write them in grade 5 language so that everybody understands." We all know you can write a question to get the answer you want. That's certainly not the job of our committee. Being up front, we want to bring a resolve to this and get back so that we can be effective as a province again as a whole.

C. Cootes Jr.: Blair, you made some comments, and you asked a question. You wanted some assistance and guidance on how we can make your job easier with this topic. You wanted to know how you can do your job in the Legislature. What I want to say again is: when you

consider the design and development of your questions, consider who the demographics are that are going to be responding, or if they will at all. We don't want to scare them away. We want to encourage them to participate in this. I would suggest you aim some of the questions to the young people, because with a lot of the young people here, whether they vote or not is not the issue. The fact is, what we want out of the treaty is economic surety. That's what we want. We don't have it now as first nations. The larger population of the province is not first nations. Some are well established and some are not. We know that the first nations are not, yet we want to be. We've entered into treaty negotiations and are trying to do associated business arrangements.

The bottom line from my perspective is that I see the fear in the landowners, people who own homes. Through lack of understanding and knowledge of the process and what it is and what aboriginal rights and title are, they see that fear. We as first nations want some things too. We don't want to be cooped up on the little Indian reserves that were created not by our design and not by your design, but by others. We want to own homes too.

As young people, we want to have the ability to get a job, to work and to own a piece of something ourselves. I understand clearly the fear in most British Columbians with the treaty process. "What do I stand to lose?" may be in the forefront of their minds more than: "What do I stand to gain by bringing certainty to this province?" They've developed with this province already, and they've got something. Well, we want something too. As a young person, I want to own a home and not have to rent one. I want to have full-time employment and opportunity for my son that will be a benefit, a spinoff of my having the ability to provide that for him. The treaty process is a mechanism that will deliver that.

I think if we go off the rails…. We're off the rails; I shouldn't say if. If we cannot get back on the rails with this process, this province will be in serious trouble; it will be. The young people here are going to have to live with this place in history. We're at a place in history where the larger population has a serious opportunity to effect change here. If it is a positive change, it's all for the better and maybe we've all achieved our objective. If it is not for the better — Ron referenced tyranny earlier — that's what you will have. Thank you.

D. MacKay: Thank you both. Just a couple of comments. Looking Forward, Looking Back is the B.C. Treaty Commission's year-end report. In there they say that the process is stalled. That's one of the reasons we're here today. They themselves admit that the process is stalled. We're hoping through this process…. Charlie, I think you mentioned it. You said that the mandates of the negotiators are unclear; they don't know where they're supposed to go. I would suggest that's because they've never been given proper marching instructions by the government.

The native people get to vote on the treaty. They say yes or no — whether they support the final treaty when it gets there. The 97 percent of the people outside the treaty process, the non-native people, don't have a say in this. For the first time, we're going to give everybody in this province an opportunity to tell us, so we can pass on to the negotiators what we want the negotiators to negotiate on behalf of the province. I think it's going to move the process along a lot quicker.

I agree that the question or questions are going to have to be very simple so that everybody understands them. Most of all, I want to ask you to consider this, because so many native groups are boycotting the referendum. We can't regionalize it if the people don't vote, so I would encourage both of you to encourage the native population to get out and vote on the referendum. We're not discussing native rights; they're entrenched in the constitution. It's the principles. I would encourage people to stop boycotting and vote during the referendum process when it takes place.

C. Cootes Jr.: Dennis, I would like to reply to what you just said. You raise some interesting points, and I like them. But I would like to say that prior to the delivery and the asking of the question, I think there has to be some education. There must be awareness for the people. Largely, a good percentage of British Columbians here today in this province, with full voting privileges, have not been here longer than 30 years. First nations have been here since time immemorial. We heard Trevor Jones earlier in these proceedings give a presentation based on some other history. Some of that has to be included, whether it's in a preface or a preamble or something to this referendum question. It is important to establish what we are talking about here. We are not only talking about economics here today; we are talking about history. You are asking this province to affect history, so they have to be armed with good information that is representative of where we came from, where we are and where we could be going with the outcomes of this question. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much to both of you. I have a sense that we could probably spend another half hour and trade questions back and forth. It's been very interesting and illuminating.

Particularly to you, Charlie, I'd say this. You talked about how, in terms of your motivation and your vision, this is about a better future for your kids. I want you to know that's why I'm here too. If that wasn't my motivation, I'd be back home maybe making some money or something. There are commonalities, and I want us all not to lose sight of those things, so thank you both for your participation this afternoon.

S. Paone: My name is Sergio Paone. I'm a municipal councillor with the town of Tofino. We didn't discuss this on council, so I don't represent the view of the entire council. I'll be very brief. There's a lot of things that have been mentioned today. I don't want to repeat some of the good points that have been made.

When people have brought up the idea that this is morally wrong because of infringement on native rights, you've responded by saying this is not a question of native rights. To the extent that you're not going to directly ask the question, "Should natives have these rights or not?" I suppose that's true. You can infringe on those rights, even if you don't directly ask that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I still think that by asking to predetermine conditions of how treaty negotiations will go, you are infringing on those rights.

The main point I want to make is from a practical point of view: why should we not go ahead with this referendum? I suppose, as you've stated, the motivation is to give guidance. The people have the right to give guidance to their government. But in a complex negotiation — it's taken eight years, and we still haven't gone to sign treaties — how does a one-time guidance really give you true guidance for negotiating on behalf of those people in the sense that, let's say, they give you a set of conditions to go into the treaty negotiations?

Based on those conditions, you present your offer and you go ahead, and it's rejected. Or even before there is an offer drafted, people just say, "No, sorry. Those conditions simply won't do," and first nations may just reject them offhand. What do you then do? Do you go ahead and have another referendum? In other words, in a negotiation there's back and forth. We've been doing back and forth for eight years.

With a one-time referendum, how do you truly have guidance from the people to go ahead within that framework that they've given you from the referendum? Undoubtedly, you will go ahead, and there'll be breakdowns in the process. Then what do you do? Do you go ahead and have another referendum? What if the negotiations take you, either suddenly or by degrees, far away from where the original direction of the referendum was? Do you then go back and ask for redirection from the people? In other words, you're no longer following their advice given to you in the referendum.

It's going to be so complicated that I don't see how this could be of any benefit. It's going to be a huge waste of money, because the nature of these negotiations is so complex that even if you ask ten or 20 questions one time, I don't see how they can give you guidance beyond the first week or two of negotiations. That was the main point I wanted to make.

The other thing is that if you're looking for guidance from people, there is currently a mechanism to give you some feedback or input into the process from local communities. That's the treaty advisory committees. Every municipal council has a representative representing that municipality. I'm the representative for Tofino. The negotiators have regular meetings. We've had a few meetings in the last year. There are also regular meetings of the various treaty advisory council members for a region. Through the local government treaty advisory representatives you have feedback from the people — the public that they represent — on the treaty, so there is currently a mechanism. If that isn't working in that way, perhaps the treaty advisory committee structure should be changed so that it does work in that way, because currently there is a mechanism for local people to approach their local government representatives and tell them what to bring to the next meeting of the treaty advisory committees.

If you're looking for guidance from the people, I put to you that the mechanism is in place now. If it's not working, then reform it. I don't think spending a huge amount of money to give a one-time direction on a complex set of negotiations will go very far. If it's rejected, what do you do then? That's really all I have to say.

Aside from the moral question — which I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on, because I still maintain it is not morally right to have this referendum — I think, from a practical point of view, you will be spending a lot of money and not really getting guidance that will bring you very far in the negotiations.

G. Trumper: I'm just going to make a comment. Thank you, Sergio. I think you make a very valid point about treaty advisory committees. We seem to hear that in other areas they have not worked as well as they should, and neither have the regional advisory committees. It varies right across the province. I would suggest that probably locally it's worked quite well. I say that because I was on it. I think it did, but that is a problem in some other areas of the province.

Our final presenter this afternoon is Jack Thornburgh. You believe in just-in-time delivery, do you, Jack? I saw you just came in.

J. Thornburgh: I am Jack Thornburgh. I work at Port Alberni Family Guidance Association as a family counsellor, and I'm chair of the Port Alberni chapter of the Council of Canadians. I'm also a member of Kairos, which some might remember as Ten Days for Global Justice, which has been incorporated under Kairos.

I've put two things on one sheet. The first resolution is from the recent annual general meeting of the

Council of Canadians, an all-Canadian meeting in Red Deer last weekend. The second is a letter you may have seen, which Kairos wrote to Premier Campbell recently.

I'd just like to read through the resolution passed at the Council of Canadians meeting that I attended in Red Deer:

The second is the item from Kairos, also known as Ten Days for Global Justice. It's an ecumenical coalition regarding social justice. This is from — the exact date I don't know — October:

That may already be in your file; I don't know. The first one probably is not, because that resolution was just passed on this past Sunday.

Finally, in the little flyer that probably was circulated amongst the committee, I just would highlight the right-hand side of the main page: "A referendum is not the answer." The second item under that is: "It is morally unjust to subject the rights of a minority to the whim of the majority." This is what our position is at the Council of Canadians, and I believe from this letter that it's true of the Kairos community as well. Thank you very much.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Jack. I wish that you had been able to attend some of the other hearings. We have covered this ground a number of times where, as you have just stated, you're concerned about subjecting the rights of the minority to the wishes of the majority. This is not about anyone's rights. We understand completely, and we recognize that aboriginal rights are recognized and affirmed in the Canadian constitution, to use its wording. We don't need any further elaboration of that. Those rights are in place. They are established in constitutional concrete.

What we need to do, recognizing those rights, is negotiate treaties. What we need to understand together is: how do we do that? What are the guiding principles that will guide that process? That's what this referendum is about. We're asking British Columbians to help us establish some points of reference, some guiding principles that will allow us, hopefully, to move this treaty negotiation process forward. I think we've heard loud and clear over the last month that we've been conducting these hearings that the treaty negotiation process thus far has produced lamentably little progress, in spite of the enthusiasm of many people initially. As we've heard presented to us this afternoon, initially people were very enthusiastic about the process of treaty-making, and many people have lost their enthusiasm. They've become disenchanted and disillusioned on all three sides of the table.

Clearly, we need to reinvigorate and perhaps re-evaluate in some ways in order that we can jointly move forward. That will require an honest discussion, I think, again on all three sides of the table. We must not be afraid to do that. We must also not be afraid to consult with all people involved — in other words, all British Columbians. We must also not be pessimistic in terms of how people will involve themselves, how they will present their opinions and, ultimately, what positions they will take.

I tend to be somewhat optimistic in terms of what the public's reaction and advice will be. I am not a pessimist when it comes to the generosity, insight and guidance that the public can provide. I have some solid basis for saying that. I have been in public life, although at another level, for 16 years. Let us not assume that the public will be backward, will be not forthcoming with the appropriate responses in a very generous and understanding way. Anyway, I'm not supposed to be preaching at these things…

J. Les (Chair): …but sometimes I do. Are there any other questions? Thank you very much for coming.

I have exactly five minutes left. On the top of that list, the latecomers, is Robert Dennis. I'll give you the chance, Robert, but please, we do have to be out of here at 4 o'clock.

R. Dennis: Anyway, I want to be really quick. Certainly, whatever British Columbia as a jurisdiction wants to do, that's their business. But what I want to say to British Columbia's jurisdiction is that you recognized that there was a jurisdiction and there is a jurisdiction that was here before you came. There was a jurisdiction that existed before 1871.

Your Premier and your colleagues are denying that, saying that we don't have a right to self-government. When you took our lands and took our resources, no one came to our Chief Tliishin, Spencer Peters of the Huu-ay-aht nation, to ask his permission for those resources or those lands. I'm asking in fairness that you recognize in your principles that first nations in fact did have self-government before 1871.

As a matter of fact, Canada and British Columbia are junior governments by native standards. I hope you recognize that. I believe that in terms of equality and when you're talking about equality and rights, you also recognize that in your principles. Let me give you an example.

In the treaty process that we're currently involved in, treaty lands will become private lands or fee simple lands, but you're giving whole access to all people. In your fee simple land, nobody can trespass on your property, so you're giving us two different designations here. On Indian fee simple land, you can have access or you can trespass. On whites' fee simple lands, you can't trespass. There are two designations, and I think that's really something we should deal with.

On private lands in terms of forest lands in British Columbia, the government has been steadfast that they will not allow Indians to have the same private land rights as timber forest companies. I hope the public is aware of that.

I don't think the public is really aware of some of the inequities that are occurring currently at these negotiations, and I hope you all are taking note of that. You all are trumping that equality card, and I appreciate that you do it, but before you do it, make sure that the equalities are occurring.

In another example, when the Pacific Rim Park was established, all the forest companies and all the private landowners were compensated. You know that to this day, the resolution around the Pacific Rim Park is not resolved, because your government and the Canadian government refused to talk about compensation. In other words, you said: "We'll compensate the white people, but we won't compensate the Indians." I find that a real demonstration of inequality, and I hope you would reconsider how you draft that question that true equality in this process will exist.

Finally, what I do want to say in terms of why we're here — and there should be a recognition in your principles — is that we are at this treaty process, because we are trying to reconcile some of those injustices that did occur in the past. Our tribe, the Huu-ay-aht first nation, has faithfully participated in this process.

We have come to this process in good faith. We signed a framework agreement that identified the issues that were to be negotiated. However, one party, after signing that agreement, chose to alter that agreement by using some fancy technical words — "set aside."

Well, British Columbia's honour is in question here, if a government will sign a framework agreement by its ministerial representatives and not live up to that agreement. I think there should be a principle that you will honour all agreements that are signed and not choose to alter them at your wish. They must be honoured. Honourable and just settlement, Premier Gordon Campbell — honourable and just settlement.

Is it honourable that you don't honour agreements signed? Is it honourable that you try to change the context of those agreements? Is it good faith? I'm asking you, because I understand it not to be good faith. So I ask each of you that you respect us in terms of how we respect you.

The Huu-ay-aht first nation is not one of those nations that have gone down and demonstrated and blockaded roads. We're not one of those tribes that have cut trees down on Crown land. We are a tribe, however, that has exercised its rights, and we have filed some litigation. We are trying to resolve those but also honour the very principle that you came to this table and that you were going to negotiate, not litigate. I think some of the speakers in B.C., at least within this room, are saying to you: "Look, if you don't do this properly, we're going down that road of litigation again."

I don't want to go there. That's not my preferred option. I believe British Columbia had a chance to settle with the Huu-ay-aht first nation. There was an opportunity, but British Columbia chose not to. In closing, I ask that when you go to those principles, you abide by the words of your leader. A just and honourable settlement really and truly has to apply.

Finally, my closing remark to Charlie Cootes. I think he has an excellent suggestion on the process. It should be regional. In the community where I come from, our tribe represents 60 percent of the population within our territory. I believe that when I went before the Bamfield community, I said: "You know, we're not going to interrupt your rights as a private landowner." I want to be able to abide by that. I may not be able to abide by that if it goes out on a provincial vote.

I don't know if any of you have seen our video called Heart of the People. We got together with the Bamfield community, a small community on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

It is my belief that if the people of British Columbia truly had a commitment to developing partnerships, we wouldn't even be talking about a referendum today. We're talking about a referendum today because certain people within our society — just like our brothers across the border there, the lumber barons — speak loud and start pounding the fist: "You're infringing on my rights." Well, that's what has happened in this referendum process.

I believe that in Huu-ay-aht territory we were going down the right path. We were meeting with the licensee. We were meeting with the contractors, the Bamfield community and the aquaculture developers in our territory. I believe we don't have to go down the referendum path. The people of British Columbia just have to open their eyes and see that there are ways of doing things a lot better than going to referendum or going to litigation. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Robert. I'm going to have to leave it there.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank everyone who has made presentations to the committee this afternoon. Thank you all for your time and valuable input. The committee has got to make tracks. We're due in Campbell River to start at 6:30 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS