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

Present: John Les, MLA (Chair); Gillian Trumper, MLA; Val Anderson, MLA; Blair Lekstrom, MLA; Dave Chutter, MLA; Rod Visser, MLA; Dennis MacKay, MLA; Mike Hunter, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Paul Nettleton, MLA (Deputy Chair); Bill Belsey, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 11:05 a.m.

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

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · David Essig, Islands Trust
    · Mark Milke, British Columbia Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
    · Bruce Milne, Mayor, District of Sechelt
    · Chris Knight
    · Gary Livingston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of British Columbia

4. The Committee recessed from 12:34 p.m. to 1:34 p.m.

5. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · Isabel Heaman, Aboriginal Rights Coalition of Victoria
    · Martin Lind, Aboriginal Rights Coalition of Victoria
    · Larry Commodore, Western Canada Wilderness Committee
    · Clive Tanner
    · Kimberly Lineger
    · Lynne Stonier-Newman
    · Mavis Gillie
    · Janet Dunnett
    · Ron Martin
    · Troy Sebastian, Native Student Union, University of Victoria
    · Murray Browne
    · Gabe Haythornthwaite
    · Avigail Eisenberg, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
    · Adriane Carr, Leader, Green Party of British Columbia
    · Vicky Husband, Sierra Club of British Columbia

6. The Committee recessed from 5:24 p.m. to 6:26 p.m.

7. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · Dorothy Field
    · Clark Roberts
    · Helen Drost
    · Darryl Youlden
    · Harvey Gifford
    · Peter DeGreef, Pacific Coast Fishing Vessel Owners Guild

8. The Committee recessed form 7:22 p.m. to 7:41 p.m.

9. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:
    · Marion Cumming
    · Kent Glowinski
    · Ann Behennah
    · Richard Price
    · Margaret Smart

10. Closing remarks made by John Les, MLA, Chair, Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

11. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 8:50 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE 
ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2001

Issue No. 19

ISSN 1499-4151

[ Page 561 ]

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2001

           The committee met at 11:05 a.m.

               [ J. Les in the chair.] 

           J. Les (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'm going to call this hearing to order. My name is John Les. I am the Chair of this committee, and I'm the MLA for Chilliwack-Sumas. Before the other members introduce themselves, just a few comments.

           The committee was established in late August by the Legislative Assembly, and its mandate is 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 at the same time ensuring that constitutionally protected aboriginal rights are protected and respected.

           Copies of the terms of reference and other information about the process are available at the back of the room. The committee is interested in hearing views of a range of British Columbians. In this process, we hope to build interest and support for the treaty-making process in British Columbia.

           We'll be accepting written submissions as well. Today is the due date for those, this being the last day that we're accepting public presentations. The hearings will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard staff. Transcripts of the evidence will be available on the committee's website at www.leg.bc.ca/cmt. Following these public hearings, the committee will prepare a report. The report will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, or if the House is not in session, it will be deposited with the Clerk. At the time of that presentation to the Clerk, the report will be a public document.

           I now ask the various committee members and staff to introduce themselves, starting with Dave Chutter.

           D. Chutter: I'm Dave Chutter, MLA for Yale-Lillooet, living outside of Merritt.

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

           B. Lekstrom: Good morning. I'm Blair Lekstrom, MLA for Peace River South in the northeastern part of our province. Dawson Creek is my home.

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

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

           M. Hunter: Mike Hunter, member for Nanaimo, which is my home.

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

           V. Anderson: Good morning, everyone. My name is Val Anderson, and I am the MLA for Vancouver-Langara, which is south Vancouver.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you all. We are now ready to start receiving the presentations for today. I would note that we have a very full agenda. Outside of breaks for a quick lunch and a quick supper, it looks like we'll be sitting well into this evening. I'm going to have to ask all presenters to try and observe the time lines, which are 15 minutes per presentation.

           The first presenter today is David Essig on behalf of the Islands Trust. Good morning.

Presentations

           D. Essig: Good morning. First off, thank you for affording us the time to come. We have a written presentation, a policy position regarding treaty negotiations involving the Islands Trust area, that we've distributed to the members of the committee. Rather than reading that to you, I thought I would speak informally on some of the salient points in there and some of the implications of those points for the work that you are now doing.

           I should begin by giving you a 30-second thumbnail sketch of what the Islands Trust is and does. It is the government for the 470 islands in the Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound, basically from Hornby and Denman in the north down to Saturna Island in the south and all of the waters across the sound and the straits and the islands of Gambier, Keats and Bowen in Howe Sound as well.

           We are a locally elected government, but we serve a provincial interest. As far as we know, we're the only hybrid government of this sort in the province and perhaps in Canada. Two trustees are elected from each local trust area. There are 12 of these and a municipality of Bowen Island. The 26 trustees sit as a council, and my job is to be the chair of the Islands Trust Council. I'm also a local trustee from Thetis Island, which is where I make my home.           

[1110] 

           The point that I think you need to underline here in terms of our structure is that we serve two masters. We serve our communities, in that each local trust committee is the land use planning authority for that local trust area. We do this in the 13 trust areas — the 12 trust areas plus the municipality of Bowen. We do this with the provincial mandate to preserve and protect the trust area not only for the people who live there and are residents and property owners but for the province generally. In that regard, we serve the province. We receive a stipend, a sum of transfer grant, every year from the province to support that provincial

[ Page 562 ] 

interest. So we're a hybrid organization, locally elected but serving the citizens of B.C. generally.

           With that, I'll move into how our mandate relates to the work that this committee is doing. I'd like to just begin with a quick anecdote. One of the things we've discovered is that the values that the Islands Trust stands for as a community and as a community of communities — the 13 areas that we represent on these 470 islands — in terms of preserving and protecting are often very much in coincidence with the values of the first nations people that we work with.

           The Islands Trust has pursued positive working relationships with first nations communities throughout the trust area where possible. We've actually concluded and have a protocol agreement between the Thetis Island community, where I live, and the Lyackson first nation, who have the property on Valdes Island in the Thetis area.

           The anecdote I wanted to share with you is that when we started to do our protocol — the chief, Rick Thomas, and the two trustees from Thetis — we just sat down together in a coffee shop in Chemainus. We took a couple of blank pieces of paper and made a list of all the things we thought were important on the islands. Then we swapped lists, and they were the same things, almost identical: to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to have some respect for the relationship between the human settlements and the natural environment.

           So in many ways those values that Chief Thomas stands for with the Lyackson first nation are very similar to the ones that the people in my community on Thetis, and throughout the trust area, stand for as well. These shared values have a way of informing the relationship that we have with the first nations. We understand that as you frame the referendum question, you can't take into account the unique characteristics of the Islands Trust area, but we're hoping that some of the ideas will come to bear on the work you are doing.

           I'd like to start with a quick overview of some process principles. These are the principles that we, the Islands Trust — the trust council and its local trustees on the islands — believe. The process needs to respect the land use planning authority of the local trust committees and of the Bowen Island municipality. It needs to recognize that local trust committees and the municipality of Bowen are orders of government in much the way the UBCM has indicated that municipal governments are throughout the province, and that we're accountable and responsible. In the case of the Islands Trust, we have an independence that is nurtured by the legislative mandate we have received from this Legislature, from the province generally.

           We would like to be seen as an equal partner at the table. In the case of the first nations negotiations underway with the Snuneymuxw first nation in the Nanaimo area, Mr. Hunter can attest to the fact that the Islands Trust — the local trust committee there — has been well regarded as an equal member of the process. We're pleased about that.

           Our job at the Islands Trust. We don't deliver services, put in sidewalks, scrape the snow away in the wintertime or run water systems. The legislation provides us with one big job to do, and that's land use planning. We preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the citizens and of the province. We do that through official community plans and land use bylaws that are the law of the land with respect to land use in each of these trust areas.

[1115] 

           What we'd like in terms of the treaty process and your work towards the question is to make sure that there's some coordination between the land use planning that happens in the trust area among the non–first nations communities and the first nations communities. You have to remember that islands are finite pieces of land in the water. There's a need that where there are parallel communities, there's a parallel process where we can coordinate the land use activities between the first nation and the non–first nation communities on these islands. We need to look at maintaining the accesses that have traditionally been there, for instance, if you want a tangible, on-the-ground example.

           We believe at the Islands Trust that settlement lands should be contiguous lands, not fragmented bits of land here and there in the trust area across the islands. Now, if you look at the land in the trust area, 10 percent of it is Crown land and 90 percent of it is privately held, which is approximately the reverse for what it is in the province generally, I believe.

           In terms of Crown land in most of the trust area, most of our local trust committees have official community plans that have placed designations on that Crown land. We believe that these Crown land designations should carry over and that there should only be changes in them with a public process that is equivalent to or greater than the one that we now employ to create and amend our official community plans.

           In that sense, we would like to see some harmonization of policies. We'd like to see the policies that we have in place carried over and, if they're changed, done in a way that harmonizes the values and interests of these parallel communities on the islands.

           Now I'd like to move quickly down to the topic of private lands in the trust area. This has been a contentious issue. Again, as Mr. Hunter can attest from the work that we have done in the Nanaimo area on Gabriola Island, the ball always seems to stop in the court of private land.

           We believe that the fee simple lands in the trust area should remain within the jurisdiction of the local planning process under the legislation and should remain within the official community plans and land use bylaws. The reason for this is simple. It's not articulated very well in this policy position paper, but it's a case that I presented to Minister Plant when he was in Nanaimo speaking with the local trust committee and other local governments in Nanaimo. I'd like to reiterate it for you here.

           It's simply this: when a local trust committee or island municipality creates an official community plan in the trust area, that plan has to be signed off by the

[ Page 563 ] 

minister. In this case it's George Abbott, who is what used to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs and is now the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. When that minister signs it off, he does so in coordination with referrals from the other ministries and senior staff and ministers. Believe me, we have had occasions where members of the cabinet have debated issues within official community plans in the trust area, because we have very sensitive issues there.

           Our belief is that when the minister signs off an official community plan, in doing so he represents and creates an element of the provincial interest on that island. To remove fee simple lands from the jurisdiction of the official community plan and the land use bylaw that flows from that plan would be, in essence, to alienate the provincial interest in that community.

           That's the key point I want to make here today as you work towards your job of framing this question in terms of these unique communities on these islands. Because of the finite nature of the islands, it's very simple to see how the transfer of the rights of authority with respect to the fee simple lands would alienate the provincial interest in those areas. That's the real key policy point I wanted to make here today.

           I'll move on quickly to governance. Insofar as governance goes, I know the issue is a large one. Again, with the Snuneymuxw in Nanaimo, we've talked a lot about governance. Minister Plant was quite careful to point out — I thought it was quite an assiduous comment on his part — that the debate seemed ultimately to be about jurisdiction in governance.

[1120] 

           We believe that the land use planning must be coordinated between the first nations and the non–first nations communities on the islands using creative structures, using protocol agreements, using all of the tools we have available at hand. We believe this should be done in a way that harmonizes the interests of the first nations with the interests of the historical non–first nations communities on these islands. An example of this would be servicing agreements that would come into place over the course of time and letters of understanding and protocols having to do with cooperation on matters of mutual interest.

           From our perspective in the Islands Trust, I don't want to open the entire agenda of governance per se but only to conclude by reiterating a point that's often been made, I'm sure, as you've travelled around with your hearings. It is that in many ways, the challenge of your job is to balance individual rights and collective rights and, equally, to balance individual responsibilities with collective responsibilities. Insofar as the 34,000 constituents of the Islands Trust area are concerned, we would appeal to you to do that with some sensitivity toward the unique problems the island communities face. With that, I will stop and ask you if there are any questions.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, David, for your comments and also for your written brief you've supplied us with this morning. I just want to refer briefly to the written brief and then pose a question to you.

           Under the heading "Private Lands," you have stated that any lands required by a first nation after completion of this treaty must not be added to settlement lands. I suspect that means they should remain fee simple lands.

           D. Essig: Yes.

           J. Les (Chair): Then if you move down to "Governance," you make the point that mechanisms must be established for the coordination of land use planning activities. Can I maybe suggest that that's somewhat redundant? If the lands remain fee simple, do they then, almost by definition, not remain under the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust?

           D. Essig: Yes, you're right. I wouldn't contend necessarily that that redundancy was deliberate, but we wanted to underscore that point. You're exactly right, John.

           J. Les (Chair): Further questions?

           M. Hunter: Thanks, David. I've got a question of fact for you, if I may. There are existing Indian reserves on Kuper Island, Valdes Island and, I'm sure, other islands. What is the relationship between the Islands Trust and Indian reserves, say, on Kuper?

           D. Essig: It's quite simple. The legislation that creates the Islands Trust area exempts Indian reserves from the area that's considered the trust area. When you look at the definition, they're exempted from it.

           M. Hunter: If there were to be a treaty that took in the Penelakut band on Kuper Island, what would be the Islands Trust view if that land were converted to settlement lands? Would you see those settlement lands then becoming, in the treaty process, part of the land planning responsibility of the Islands Trust?

           D. Essig: No. Historically, the Indian reserve lands have always been separate. They're not in any way considered under the jurisdiction of the Islands Trust. I think our responsibility to our constituents in that event you're referring to would be to ensure that the spillovers, the externalities that are created by transferring the Kuper band from reserve status to settlement lands, would be harmonized with the interests of the people on Thetis Island.

           If, for instance, folks on Kuper in the settlement wanted to do something that would have an external diseconomy, if you will, to the people on Thetis — a bad spillover — we'd like to be involved in somehow making sure that we could share some discourse on this, at least, and try to harmonize those interests.

           M. Hunter: You answered my question. The Islands Trust doesn't foresee settlement lands that are now reserves being part of the overall land use planning

[ Page 564 ] 

process that you are engaged in on the rest of the territory.

           D. Essig: No. What we would see is the situation similar to what we did with the Lyackson, who have about a third of Valdes Island. We did a protocol agreement, agreeing to share information and try to work in a cooperative way.

           M. Hunter: Okay, thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Any further questions? Perhaps I have just one more, Dave.

           You are likely aware of land in the Nanaimo area that is held by the Inuvialuit Development Corp. That land is held in fee simple, as I understand it, and is completely subject to land use controls and development controls that exist in the city of Nanaimo.

           D. Essig: Yes.

           J. Les (Chair): That is the type of model you would presumably be quite comfortable with.

[1125] 

           D. Essig: Yes. We're speaking in that instance with respect only to the lands on Gabriola, because that's the only area of jurisdiction of the trust.

           J. Les (Chair): Correct.

           D. Essig: And where there's a significant amount of land on Gabriola that is now held fee simple and that could potentially wind up on the bargaining table and wind up as part of the settlement, the position of the Gabriola trustees, and supported by our council, would be that those lands should observe the existing land use designations through the community plan.

           J. Les (Chair): It just seemed interesting to me that not far away, in this case in the city of Nanaimo, you have an aboriginal group that has acquired land — I don't know how long ago, but presumably some time ago — and they've been happy, I guess, to hold that land in fee simple. In my view there are certain economic advantages to it as well.

           D. Essig: Yes. That's an area that we have discussed with the Snuneymuxw with respect to the Gabriola situation.

           J. Les (Chair): No further questions from the committee?

           I'd like to thank you, on behalf of all of us, for coming this morning and helping us with your insight.

           The next presenter is Mr. Mark Milke on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Given his good economic principles, he believes in just-in-time delivery. He's just arrived.

           M. Milke: I have a rather long submission, at least for an oral presentation, so I won't subject you to all of it.

           J. Les (Chair): I was just going to suggest, Mark, that obviously you weren't here when I suggested that all of the presenters have 15 minutes.

           M. Milke: Okay. Fifteen minutes including questions, I take it.

           J. Les (Chair): Exactly.

           M. Milke: Let me start by thanking you for the opportunity to appear. Due to time constraints I will skip my customary explanation of what the federation is all about — its background, membership and goals — and move straight into the matters for which we are all here. I will skip over, as I said, some of the written submission and attempt to stick to some core points.

           Let me take this opportunity to commend the government for pressing on with its plan to hold a referendum. There has been much criticism of the idea. Some of the criticism has, in my view, been hysterically wrong, such as the proposition that a referendum would be a vote on minority rights. Many of those who have uttered such remarks are smart enough to know that referendums cannot be on constitutionally guaranteed rights. That's why they're called constitutional rights. The courts would rightly strike down any attempt at infringement of constitutionally protected freedoms.

           Those who are smart enough to know that have argued that false line of reasoning not because such rights are in danger but for a very different reason. Those who throw the charge of racism easily around and raise the spectre of denied rights do so to carve out bargaining room at the negotiating table. It is a strategy of sorts, but one that is reckless.

           Let me be blunt, because this is a presentation not only for the committee but for aboriginal leaders, who I would be more than happy to chat with about these items. There's little time for nuances here in a ten-minute presentation. When well-known native leaders throw the racism charge around or falsely claim that a referendum would take away rights, such leaders are employing that rhetoric precisely because they know that most British Columbians are not racists. Such proponents attempt to intimidate the average British Columbian into never questioning what some native leaders propose. The strong rhetoric thus helps accomplish that end. That is not helpful.

           Let me put it another way. If most British Columbians were indeed racist, then nothing native leaders could say or do would have an effect upon citizens — period. It is precisely because most British Columbians are sympathetic and feel badly for the condition that some natives find themselves in and, in fact, sometimes feel guilty over the condition that some are in that the extreme rhetoric works on occasion. It does silence criticism. Extreme rhetoric is not helpful, and eventually it becomes counterproductive. The listeners eventually become deaf to such talk and then begin to turn a deaf ear, even when they should not.

           Let me add to this that I am more than willing, as I said, and in fact more than happy to discuss everything

[ Page 565 ] 

that I will say today with Bill Wilson and other native leaders. This is your invitation, Mr. Wilson. When you get this, feel free to call me, and let's discuss this over lunch. We'll likely disagree on some matters, but you're not going away and neither are the members of the federation. There has been a de-escalation of some of the harsh rhetoric recently, and let me say that that is a very positive development. Let's build on that. In the meantime, I do commend the government for pressing forward with the referendum.

[1130] 

           Now onto the matters about which Mr. Wilson and I will likely disagree. In our view, accountable and responsive governments are simply better governments. This is true for Canadians in general and is no less true for native Canadians. Let me add one motive for being here today besides the obvious tax-and-spend implications of some of these treaties. Every office in the federation around the country receives, on occasion, calls from natives who are frustrated with their local council or with the Department of Indian Affairs. Some allege corruption; some allege incompetence. All want change and more accountable government. In other words, native Canadians are like any other taxpayers who on occasion become frustrated with their government.

           We're not anti-politician at the federation, but we are pro-accountability. That means that on occasion we do disagree with political leaders, both native and non-native. What I'm saying is this: no political leader should thus feel unduly picked on by the federation. Governments are sometimes called leviathan, and for a very good reason. They can be large, unwieldy beasts that are difficult to control, and no one should be surprised when citizens of any race have difficulty with their governments.

           As it concerns land claims, treaties and aboriginal issues, there are, as I mentioned, obvious matters of taxation and spending. I'm going to skip by some of the polling numbers that the federation has done among its own supporters. Let me speak very quickly to my own personal concern.

           My concern about these issues actually originated not with British Columbia but with east Asia when I lived there for two years. I kept track of politics there. I returned to Canada and spent three years writing a master's thesis on human rights and democracy in east Asia. As I looked over political statements from leaders in those countries, often the argument came forward that less democracy and fewer human rights, as defined by the west, were justified in those countries. The justification was that "Asian values" did not require robust human rights and democratic practice. Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew, the leader of Malaysia and others have made this argument. There are, of course, functioning parliaments in some of these countries and in Singapore and Malaysia, though they can be described as soft authoritarian governments at times. China, of course, does not have a functioning democracy. Not everyone in east Asia agreed with those criticisms then or now.

           How does this matter or link to British Columbia? Well, in this sense. When I returned to Canada, I noticed that the same justifications for restricting the rights of natives and non-natives, depending on where one was coming from and the argument one was making, were routinely given here. There is the argument of culture. A culture is distinct in certain senses; therefore, not every sort of freedom or human right is applicable in that culture. That's one argument. I'm paraphrasing my own arguments this morning. There's not enough time to go into detail about all of these. Let me say this, though: I found the arguments from the east Asian leaders — just as I do from some political leaders in Canada, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal — to be too convenient on some of these points.

           More of the reasoning on this is in the presentation before you. None of this is to say that culture and communal values aren't valid on occasion. It's all a question, of course, of how you arrive at that. One could write a book on such matters.

           Here's what I'm driving at. The supporters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — and as I mentioned, there are some polling numbers that we've done among our own membership on these subjects within the presentation — want the distinctions between native and non-native, beyond those that are constitutionally mandated, to exist not in law and treaties but in voluntary choices, at least in the long term, with long term perhaps defined as 20 or 30 years. In addition, I think most Canadians want natives to have opportunities for prosperity like any other Canadian but want to ensure that such opportunities are built upon real foundations that provide for such opportunity, not merely wish lists of what some think would provide opportunity. It's a critical difference.

           Others have already pointed this out to you, I'm sure, but treaties in other parts of this country, even in areas with great resource wealth, and countries in other parts of the world which have great resource wealth are not necessarily prosperous. Now, if I understand the bargaining position of some native councils to some degree — and I don't claim to have a complete understanding — some assume that with control of resources will come prosperity. Governments in Canada — in British Columbia in particular — which represent citizens at large and have responsibility for the public purse, and native governments, which represent natives in particular, will both have to close the expectation gap between natives and non-natives.

[1135] 

           Here are some suggestions, then, from the federation on how to do that, followed by the reasoning behind the questions. Again, I'm paraphrasing my own notes this morning as I go through this, so if I'm unclear, feel free to ask, if there's any time left.

           First of all, the referendum questions should be a series of questions, not just one. Each one should have a clear yes-or-no response.

           Question 1: should treaty negotiators insist, wherever possible and practicable and with the cooperation of senior governments, that funds intended for native communities be directed to native individuals first, with the native government in question then responsible for taxing back the money — either with the help of

[ Page 566 ] 

senior governments or directly via the reserve government, as they see fit — from residents for the administration of the territory in question?

           You're going to have to read that a couple of times to get the full meaning of that, I'm sure. This is crucial, and here is why. Accountability on native reserves is now lacking, and there is only one way to solve that problem. We deal with this every day at the federation. Again, we've had these complaints. We've done a lot of freedom-of-information requests about accountability on reserves, and we've chatted with natives across the country on this issue. Many of them are not happy with how the money flows. Native governments must collect taxes the way any government collects taxes: through income taxes, property taxes and a multitude of other taxes.

           This would have an immediate effect upon the size of government on reserves and upon accountability. There is presently a Gordian knot of accountability problems on reserves, and no amount of royal commissions or federal audits will solve this. The only way to ensure accountability for the money spent on reserves is to cut through the Gordian knot, and that means the money that is transferred to natives must first go to the individuals, wherever possible, and then be taxed back by local native governments in some fashion.

           I don't pretend that this would necessarily be easy. There would be some working out of this. There may need, for example, to be different arrangements from natives that are not on reserves.

           After all, this works — to a degree, I emphasize — with provincial, municipal and federal governments. As one French minister once said, the art of taxation consists of plucking feathers from the goose with the least amount of hissing. Reserve governments need to be subject to the discipline of hissing taxpayers, to put not too fine a point on it.

           This would also promote a size of government on reserves, over time, equal to the local tax base, which is hopefully a growing one. That requirement of direct taxation ought to be negotiated, which means it needs to be a referendum question.

           Question 2: while it will be up to the native community in question to decide on the amount of private property and communal property on reserve land, should, as a condition of provincial government agreement, provincial negotiators insist that any treaty include a provision that mandates a local referendum on the matter of individual property rights and parcels?

           This is not inconsequential. Private property rights that are stable and transferable are the foundation for wealth creation the world over, and communally held properties that produce wealth are the rare exception to this, not the rule. This is true worldwide historically. We ought not to glide over that important fact. I can't emphasize this enough. If we do, all the treaties, tax moneys and resources given to native governments will mean little for the average native.

           Look at the current situation in the rest of Canada, even on resource-rich reserves. Anyone who doubts this need only look at resource-rich countries across the world — in Africa, in particular — to see that the abundance of resources does not guarantee prosperity. I recommend a book by the Peruvian economist who has studied poverty for three decades, Hernando de Soto's The Mystery of Capital. The connection between identifiable individual property rights and prosperity is not accidental. Both sides in treaty negotiations ought to sincerely consider lessons from around the world.

           Question 3: should taxpayer assistance provided by federal and provincial governments and exemptions from taxation, as well as social policy and resource policy exemptions where applicable and not of a constitutional guarantee, be wound down over time — perhaps two or three decades? I'll explain that, if you'd like, but I'll leave that as is. Again, the explanation is in the notes.

           Question 4: should treaty negotiators insist that voting rights be extended to all residents of a reserve as a condition of the provincial government signing the treaty? I will also let the explanation go on this one; it is in the paper.

           There are some miscellaneous points, but let me sum up this way. Gordon Gibson has elsewhere made the argument that treaties may be more expensive for taxpayers than they assume at present and that native expectations on other matters are similarly out of balance with what the eventual reality will be. I agree with his observation.

[1140] 

           I would add that from my conversations with people in my capacity as a director with the federation for four years, I believe that many taxpayers would write a larger cheque if — and I emphasize if — treaty negotiations truly do produce final agreements that are as ironclad as possible in a world full of lawyers and, just as importantly, work towards lowering the institutionalized divisions between natives and non-natives over time. That is not an endorsement of a blank-cheque approach.

           Just an observation. If native negotiators are prepared to give up over time some of the more controversial and, from my perspective and that of my members, unequal privileges that offend those with a fair sense of play and are willing to fundamentally restructure questions of taxation, benefits and property on reserves to lay the basis for a more prosperous future, then I believe the public would be more willing to cut more generous cheques in the interim — providing the future is one with very few exceptions to the general rule of equality before the law, again with an eye to the constitution.

           To summarize, we know what the results have been in the rest of the country. Treaties there have not done much in terms of creating economic prosperity. We have a chance in British Columbia to set an example for the rest of the country. That will require fresh thinking from both sides of the negotiating table. I do feel bad that we've had such little time here, but I believe there is an opportunity to fundamentally alter expectations on both sides. I do hope that we can take it.

           Thank you. 

[ Page 567 ] 

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Mark. Like you, I regret that we don't have the luxury of lots of time, but I'm sure there's probably a question or two from members of the committee. I'd be happy to entertain those.

           I was trying to read as you were talking, and we might not have been on the same page. You highlighted the option of providing aboriginal people with privately owned land as part of the treaty settlement package. I believe I read that in here somewhere. Could you perhaps just elaborate on that slightly?

           M. Milke: Sure. It could be done a number of ways. You can't obviously force this, nor should you, but I think you can make it a negotiating tactic. There's nothing wrong with it. I think it would be to the benefit of native communities in general. Not necessarily every native leader wants the situation to be as is, and I don't assume all native leaders think the same way. You could have a variant on private property on reserves that allowed native individuals to trade between themselves. You could, of course, go much further than that and make private property on reserve subject to all the normal private property rules that the rest of us abide by, including the chance to buy more and the chance to lose it.

           Again, we don't have time to go into it this morning. This is crucial for wealth creation. Most small business starts happen because an individual uses their home, their private property, to start a business. Right now, of course, a native on a reserve who wants to do that doesn't actually own the property. It becomes problematic. I don't suggest this is necessarily easy, and I know there's a great amount of disagreement about this from some native leaders. I think it should be considered, because otherwise we may just end up with treaties that replicate what we've done across the country with very little wealth creation as a result.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Mark, for your presentation. A question I would have is surrounding self-government. It's certainly an issue that's before us and something that has to be resolved. Your views as far as the style: would you favour a municipal-style model as far as self-government goes?

           M. Milke: We would favour municipal style, not in any sense constitutional. There are arguments about the Nisga'a treaty, as you know, and whether it gave the Nisga'a more than municipal style. I would argue that it did. It gave them powers equal to federal and provincial governments. Delegated municipal style, yes, but with that voting rights for non-natives. I just think these are core principles that ought to be observed. Municipal style is no problem, but again there were a lot of things in the Nisga'a treaty that were not simply municipal — for example, adoption rights decided by the local government which in other jurisdictions is simply a provincial matter.

           B. Lekstrom: Thanks, Mark.

           J. Les (Chair): Thanks very much, Mark. I very much appreciate the written brief you have provided us with. I'm sure in our spare time we will all peruse it very carefully.

           Our next presenter this morning is His Worship Mayor Bruce Milne from the district of Sechelt.

           B. Milne: Thank you. There's a part of me that envies you, because I think this is probably the most interesting and complex file we have on the table. It's partly because there's no solutions, but partly it's just a great challenge.

[1145] 

           J. Les (Chair): Thanks for that, Bruce.

           B. Milne: On the other hand, I've been trying to keep up with your work through Hansard. I want to congratulate you, but I don't envy you from what I've read. Little bits of Hansard that I have read give me some sense of the huge diversity of people you've spoken to and the views you've heard. I want to commend you, in fact, for the openness of that process, but I don't envy that you're trying to sort through that. I'm not going to be of much help, because I'm going to add yet another viewpoint. I will read parts of the presentation because I want to make sure that the points are taken.

           I want to say a few words about the dynamics of the treaty negotiations in B.C. as I understand them. Second, I want to say a few words about public consultation and participation. I think people are overlooking the role that your referendum will have as a significant intervention in the way we participate in politics in British Columbia. I find that quite exciting. Third, if I can be presumptuous, I want to speak a bit about some of the referendum questions and what might be useful to help establish mandates after that.

           First, I should start by saying I'm not here as the mayor of Sechelt. It's actually a district, not a town. I haven't vetted this with my council. They're aware that I'm here, of course, and they've all read copies of it. I'm also the chair of the Sunshine Coast treaty advisory committee. I haven't vetted this with the TAC either, but they have copies, and they know my positions. I have some experience, two years, with the lower mainland TAC. I was on the executive there as the regional district representative. I'm also a director with the Sunshine Coast regional district. Again, they have copies. I'm not speaking on their behalf. I'm also the chair of the Coastal Community Network, which is a unique organization which links regional districts and tribal councils and has given me some perspective on these issues from there. Again, I didn't take this to the board of the CCN. I'm presenting these as views from my own perspective. My background is as a political scientist. I've spent most of my adult life trying to think through issues of B.C. policy and policy development, and that's really where I'm coming from.

           The nature of treaty negotiations in British Columbia. It's my view that treaty negotiations in British Columbia have been inconclusive and unproductive over the past decade, as those efforts have been guided by a

[ Page 568 ] 

set of incorrect assumptions. This is particularly clear in British Columbia's efforts and is evident in different, more complex ways in Canada's negotiations in our province.

           British Columbia's negotiations assume that treaties are primarily about resource redistribution. The paradigm has been labour negotiations, where parties with opposing interests barter and trade within a shared framework on the basis of mutual dependence. Both sides want the existing system to continue; in fact, they need the existing relations to continue. That the model of labour negotiations has profoundly influenced treaty negotiations in B.C. is not surprising. People bring to new situations the skills, experience and knowledge gained in their past.

           Our history does not include formal negotiations between nations. To the extent that such negotiations took place prior to 1846, we were the resource to be redistributed by others. Any relations established between colonies, as formalized in 1857, or the negotiations of the colony of British Columbia with the Dominion of Canada leading to 1871 were conducted as subordinate players under the sovereign control of the British Crown. Any lessons we may have learned about treaty-making, if they do exist, are part of a very distant past. We have even less experience in formal negotiation between cultures.

           On the other hand, labour negotiations are a part of our experience in British Columbia. It's not far-fetched to argue that this model had particular salience to the former government. In addition, the labour model was used by the federal government to negotiate aboriginal land claim settlements in the northern parts of Canada in the 1980s and 1990s, and this has had a direct influence on the models that we've used. However, first nations are not the same as unionized workers looking for a different slicing of the pie. Neither can British Columbia government be reduced to fit the narrow suits of a corporate management team.

           In my view — and this is the important point — the fundamental dynamic of aboriginal relations in our province can only be understood as the politics of identity. Identity politics are not, for the most part, about redistribution. They are about reconciliation and recognition, about destiny and, most importantly, about self-determination. The lessons we need to draw upon to successfully negotiate in this context can be found in the experience of former colonies emerging as nation states post–World War II or the South African experience in ending apartheid. Closer to home there are lessons to be learned from the American civil rights movement and/or the women's movement of the past three decades.

[1150] 

           The most important point to remember in the politics of identity is that the dominant social groups or established authorities have neither the right nor the ability to determine the identity of others within a free and democratic society. They may want to, and they will certainly try, but it can never be a successful venture. History, even in this province, shows that those struggling for identity never surrender. Of course, identity will be negotiated in a socio-political context. There will be give and take. There will be mutual accommodation. However, in this dynamic those struggling to determine their identity in relation to others must be satisfied that their needs are being met.

           A significant complexity in negotiating social identity vis-à-vis aboriginal communities is their insistence that aboriginal identity is linked to land and resources. Another but lesser difficulty is posed by their sense of identity as collective rather than individualized. While neither of these issues is unique to British Columbia experiences, our geography and settlement patterns have created special determinants that further complicate the treaty process in this province.

           The aboriginal identification with land and associated resources raises both technical and conceptual barriers to the resolution of treaties in British Columbia. The most important technical issue emerges in urban environments, most clearly in the lower mainland. As argued before you by Mayor Don Bell, chair of the LMTAC, the urban areas of British Columbia are unique and pose specific challenges to treaty negotiations. From the point of view of aboriginal identity, what can it mean to be identified with a land base that has been totally, utterly transformed? The only sense in which, for example, the Musqueam traditional territory remains the same as the land of their ancestors is as coordinates in a geographical positioning system. Is it the physical location within a land base that determines aboriginal identity or the relationship to a land base — i.e., how that land base is used?

           The conceptual barriers posed by aboriginal identification with land is best illustrated by the issue of multiple overlapping traditional territories. When ordinary British Columbians hear that more than 100 percent of the provincial land base is claimed as traditional territory by aboriginals in treaty negotiations, they come to a range of conclusions about the treaty process, about aboriginals, about aboriginal intentions and about their own future in British Columbia. All of those conclusions are legitimate and essentially correct within the dominant conceptual framework or perspective of ordinary British Columbians. We assume a situation of scarcity and finite resources. We assume a sedentary pattern to land use and settlement. We assume a system of ownership based on exclusive use and title. We think we understand, in the far reaches of our minds, sovereignty. These assumptions and understandings establish a perspective, a view of the world around us. We make one other assumption. It is an assumption that is perhaps essential to human interaction: that our perspective is held in common, that our view of the world is shared by others. Unfortunately, this assumption is false. It scarcely holds true within established, stable, homogeneous groups. It should never be assumed across cultures. It should never be assumed in situations of social, political or economic inequality. Why would I base my identity on your assumptions about the world and my place in it?

           I will not presume to outline the assumptions that inform aboriginal perspectives of the world. I will suggest that the overlap of traditional territories, the claim

[ Page 569 ] 

to more than 100 percent of British Columbia, points to a set of assumptions about title, resource use and sovereignty that are very different from those of ordinary British Columbians. Those different assumptions and unique view of the world lead to different conclusions that are, within their context, equally legitimate and as correct as our own. We must learn to negotiate treaties with this knowledge uppermost in our minds.

           I'll move to the sections on public consultations and democracy, and I'll skip through most of that. I just want to say that this is, of course, in the context of debates that started to emerge in the late 1980s. It was part of the election campaign of 1991. We've had some referendum and recall legislation — in my view, awkward legislation — introduced by the previous government. We have been noticing a profound change in the last two decades towards public participation. The key points I'd like to make, coming out of research, are at the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 of my brief.

[1155] 

           Research indicates that apathy is the norm only when attempts to participate result in frustration, and there are three important conditions that must be met if political participatory reforms are to succeed. First, people must be fully informed about the issues they're asked to decide upon. No one likes to make judgments based on ignorance of the issues. Most people would rather not be involved if they cannot be informed.

           Second, the issues must be important and relevant. Participating in minor decisions of no real significance simply breeds apathy. People recognize it as a waste of valuable time and quickly withdraw from the process.

           Third, participation must lead to genuine influence. To be consulted and then ignored, or to have public decisions overturned, breaks a fundamental trust of participants, and that trust is very difficult to rebuild.

           Participation in democratic decision-making can work if information is fully available to participants on issues they deem to be important, and if their decisions are respected and implemented. This committee and the citizens of British Columbia have all the conditions in place to make the referendum on treaty negotiations a huge success, and I trust you will meet that challenge.

           In the context of these remarks on the nature of treaty negotiations in British Columbia and the conditions necessary for successful political participation, I would ask you to consider three general suggestions and a few potential questions.

           First, an informed electorate will be crucial to the success of the referendum. I would urge you to convince your cabinet colleagues and especially the Minister of Finance to budget sufficient resources to provide the opportunity for voters to become as informed as they need to be.

           Second, I would like to see a preamble to the referendum questions that takes into account the issues of identity and self-determination of aboriginal people. In my view an explicit acknowledgment by this government that the referendum is taking place within a context that includes sections 25 and 35 of the Canadian constitution and recognizes the legal support for aboriginal title and self-government provided by the Supreme Court of Canada is essential for success.

           A referendum preamble with such explicit acknowledgment would do two things. First, it would go a long way to eliminating confusion and uncertainty among the aboriginal community regarding this government's intentions in treaty negotiations and with this referendum. Second, it would remind all British Columbians that there is no going back as they consider the issues before them.

           Third, a general suggestion I would make is to begin considering the post-referendum situation. In particular I ask you to prepare a strategy in the event of referendum responses that are negative towards the treaty process. Referenda are by nature rather black and white events. They are designed to provide clear direction and a specific mandate for governments. Reponses may be more or less supportive of continued treaty negotiations. I want my government to be prepared in the event that British Columbians say no to the existing treaty process or no to any perceived mandate of this government.

           It's been much more difficult to identify specific questions that would clarify the situation of treaty negotiations for British Columbia. Questions that are too vague or that reflect widely held values such as equality before the law will not help to clarify the mandate of the provincial government. I went through this section. I tore it out, put it back in, tore it out. Coming to the questions is just going to be an immense challenge, and I have very little to help.

           I did look at the questions that have come before you, and I thought the two by Gordon Gibson were rather puzzling. I really respect his work and his contribution on this issue, and I've reprinted them in the mandate, but both of them are rather broad. I ask what it would mean to say no to either of his questions — that British Columbians reject the constitution of Canada or reject the legitimate authority of the government of British Columbia to act on their behalf? I don't think you want questions that are that vague, which in fact end up with that kind of a potential no vote.

           What, then, do we ask? If we need to test the fundamental mandate of the province to engage in treaty negotiations, we should ask that question: do you believe the British Columbia treaty process is the proper mechanism for addressing first nation issues in British Columbia? In addition, I would suggest a question on the most basic strategy of negotiations, which is that we will be exchanging aboriginal title for specified treaty rights. The question would be: do you agree that treaty negotiations should provide the basis for the full exchange of aboriginal title for specified treaty rights?

           There should be a question on the constitutional status of treaties or what is referred to as the cast-in-concrete issue. My question there would be: do you think that finalized treaties should be formally adopted as an enduring part of Canada's Constitutional Act, or do you think that treaties should be enacted by federal and provincial legislation, subject to multi-party review and amendment? 

[ Page 570 ] 

[1200] 

           In my view there should be an opportunity for British Columbians to comment on the current tripartite participation in treaty negotiations. Are they satisfied with these arrangements? Do they see this as essentially an issue between first nations and Canada — I know that view's been brought before you — or, my view, given a choice would they prefer to see a larger role for local governments in treaty negotiations? The questions would be: do you think that the current arrangement of trilateral negotiations best represent your interests? Would you agree that local governments should have a greater role in treaty negotiations?

           Finally, British Columbians have never been given an opportunity to clearly indicate their preference for the ratification of treaties. I do not believe that a just society would allow for referenda on the human rights of minorities. However, the current ratification of treaties seems unbalanced. Could we consider allowing local communities a ratification vote on the agreement-in-principle or the final treaty? If it failed, I would suggest that the negotiations have not adequately addressed the interests of those most directly affected.

           These types of questions would cover the basics of treaty negotiations: the fundamental strategy or exchange at the heart of negotiations, the degree of finality, who participates and how ratification takes place. In an ideal situation there would also be opportunities for citizens to vote on specific principles for each chapter in a treaty.

           This committee has a very difficult and challenging task ahead of it. You have my best wishes, and thank you for allowing me and so many other citizens of the province an opportunity to add our thoughts to your deliberations.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Bruce, for your presentation this morning. I know that you've had considerable involvement in the treaty-making process from a municipal perspective, going back quite a number of years. Your thoughts this morning will be very helpful to us, I'm sure.

           Are there any questions from committee members?

           G. Trumper: Thanks, Bruce, for your presentation. It's a very thoughtful one, and I know you've been very involved in a lot of the negotiations that have been going on.

           I wondered if you could maybe enlarge a little bit on your question No. 3: do you think that finalized treaties should be formally adopted? Could you just enlarge a little bit on that?

           B. Milne: Well, I think the best way to put that issue to rest is to actually ask the province and the people in the province how they feel on that issue. Certainly many people are very concerned about the constitutional entrenchment that would be very difficult to change under amending formulas. Others are somewhat less concerned. I personally take the position — I think it was first put forward to you early in September by Mr. Gibson — that in fact, we don't get things right very often. What makes us think we're going to get this one right? In fact, he used the example of marriage.

           I would probably vote on a question like that — that they should be put forward through enabling legislation, that federal and provincial governments should in fact do this, but it can then be modified in different ways, in a much easier way than the constitution. That's my preference, but I don't think we've actually asked the community. We've had this debate rolling around, and we've had a few good papers emerge, but that's one way to settle that, I think, if we could actually ask that.

           G. Trumper: You also brought up the question of information, what it should be…. Having been involved for awhile as you have, do you have any suggestions on that? Obviously, you must feel that not a good enough job has been done up until now.

           B. Milne: I'd qualify that. We couldn't have had this referendum ten years ago. Your deliberations in the committee presentations we've seen indicates to me a very high level of awareness and interest in the community, but not necessarily well informed. I think we could have a good referendum. I think the conditions are right for that in terms of public information, partly because of all the negotiations that have been going on and the little bits that have been coming through. I think that's good.

           What I do want is an opportunity for those who need to, to delve into some of the issues, because some of them are going to be complex. You're not going to be able to ask simplistic questions. There are consultation processes that can be put in place. I think that some of the staff in the former Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs who were actually hired for consultation did very well, and some of them not so well. It's kind of uneven around the province. We'd want to look at that unevenness and say: "Why did it work well in Sechelt and not in Smithers?" I'm just pulling those out. I don't know if it worked well in Smithers. I don't want anyone to get in trouble.

           We'd want to look at that. I just want to make sure there are enough resources, and we don't just run it through as: "Two weeks from now you're going to be voting on this. Here's your questions." I think the province is ready for it and primed.

[1205] 

           V. Anderson: You highlight, in the initial background, the politics of identity. I'm asking if you have a suggestion as to how we help each other across this gulf to understand each other's identity in the sense that…. As we go around, we're quite clear that everybody has the same interests of family and individual and education and health and all of these kinds of things, but they come at them differently. How can we help people to recognize what seems to be a contradiction?

           B. Milne: It's very difficult, because both aboriginal and other British Columbia communities will hugely

[ Page 571 ] 

value family and community, but they mean different things when they say "community." Their sense of collective identity of community is very different than ours, even though we live in and value community. I tried to hint that we have to be very careful about our assumptions and remind ourselves and remind others that the languages we use may be similar but the meanings behind them are different.

           No, I don't have an answer. It's a continual struggle to remind ourselves that people don't all agree with us and that when we use language in a room — even here, where all of those sitting at the desk, with one exception, are white, middle class and male — we don't always have the same meaning behind our language. We just have to assume that we do. So we get into these conversations, and then we find out that we've got a point of difference.

           Well, with aboriginal communities I have found, over the last five years of being actively involved on the negotiating teams, that the language and misperception and misunderstanding are the most fundamental place where they fall apart. They actually hear different things when they hear "economic development." It's not just material expectations; it's much deeper than that, even the idea of resource-sharing.

           I think it can be done. I do reference the women's movement in the last 30 years. The gender wars haven't been easy. Women have totally transformed their identity in the last 30 years and said: "I don't want to be limited to this identity here that I might have had in the forties and fifties. I want this identity here." Yes, there was also some redistribution of resources. Women take up more places in corporate head offices and universities, etc. But it was primarily about identity.

           I think that is the issue here as well. We have to recognize that aboriginal communities and their leaders are striving to have us acknowledge their identity as they determine it. We just have to remain open. I don't know how. It's tough.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Bruce. Like some speakers before you, I wish we could keep you here longer, but we do appreciate very much the fact that you've taken the time.

           The next presenter is Chris Knight.

           C. Knight: I'd just like to thank this committee for allowing some space and time on your agenda for me to come and share some thoughts with you this morning. I'm a negotiator and mediator in private practice, but at one point I was the chief negotiator for the government of the Yukon Territory during the period in which the Council for Yukon First Nations umbrella final agreement and the first four first nations final agreements and self-government agreements were concluded. I was also one of the first three B.C. chief negotiators when the treaty process was first initiated in British Columbia. I may be one of a handful of individuals in the country who've successfully survived one of these processes.

           From the basis of that experience, I'd like to talk to you about three things today. I'd like to talk about equality, about the B.C. treaty settlement model and about an alternative and some suggestions with respect to the proposed referendum.

           The word "equality," like other words — certainty, finality, predictability — has become part of the shorthand that's used in reference to the treaty process and treaty outcomes, without a lot of discussion or common understanding about what each group or individual means when the word is used. I'd like to talk about the definition of equality, specifically whether or not that definition includes what I call the equality of social and economic experience.

[1210] 

           For many British Columbians it's unacceptable in an enlightened society for a racially defined group such as first nations to consistently have a significantly lower socioeconomic experience compared to that of the rest of British Columbians.

           If you take any sampling of generally accepted community wellness indicators — employment, employment participation, per-capita income, housing standards, number of social assistance cases, suicides, kids in care, teen pregnancies, kindergarten-to-grade 12 success, post-secondary participation — you'll find dramatic differences. First nations unemployment rates are five times higher than those of non-aboriginal residents in the same geographic area; suicide rates are seven times higher than the national; average per-capita income 30 percent lower. And on it goes.

           Some may say: "Well, isn't that what the treaty process is supposed to do: provide equal opportunities to first nations so that they can work towards an equal socioeconomic experience?" Perhaps that would work if we didn't have 150 years of inequality as the foundation for the present situation. It's like you and I running a 200-metre race. I start 100 metres ahead of you, but we both must run at the same pace. Your chance of catching up is pretty remote. In fact, I doubt that you will ever catch up.

           This socioeconomic gap is what we're trying to close through treaty settlements. This idea of an equality of experience or a comparable socioeconomic experience within British Columbia society, within Canadian society, is one of the key objectives of aboriginal leaders and first nations. It may not be expressed that way, but they want the same things that you and I want as non-aboriginal British Columbians: a good employment/unemployment rate, kids graduating from high school at 68 percent as opposed to 22 percent, and so on.

           However, it's not an acknowledged part of the generally accepted goals and objectives of treaty-making. I believe that until this equality of experience becomes part of our definition of "equal" and we begin to build wellness indicators and performance-based criteria into the treaty agreements, the treaty process will remain an exchange of guarantees for opportunities — guarantees of legal certainty for government over land resources and jurisdiction, but only unproven opportunities for

[ Page 572 ] 

first nations in their quest to achieve healthy communities.

           We need to work together to close the socioeconomic gap and to achieve an equality of experience before we set our societal relationship in what some people refer to as the constitutional concrete of a treaty. Here are some suggestions.

           1. Make equality of experience a component of pretreaty capacity-building and a fundamental objective of the treaty process.

           2. Take a step-by-step approach to closing the gap starting now. The less the parties have to rely on the treaty package as a panacea for correcting all social and economic ills, the easier it's going to be to get treaties. The less the gap is that you have to close and the reliance on the treaty package to do all of that, obviously the easier it's going to be to conclude them.

           3. Focus on adding value to create a larger economy as opposed to reallocating resources from one group of British Columbians to another. Adding value in this instance means adding the aboriginal dimension to the economy, which has thus far been missing.

           I'll give you two examples. In forestry, for example, the marketplace wants a certification regime that guarantees effective environmental and socioeconomic stewardship. First nations can play a key role in improving British Columbia's market penetration and pricing in the forestry sector.

           Cultural tourism is the second example that I provide. Visitors to British Columbia want to experience the richness of aboriginal culture, which richness is not yet a basic part of B.C.'s tourism industry.

[1215] 

           The second theme I'd like to touch on this morning is the treaty settlement model that's been adopted for British Columbia. It's an import; it's not made in B.C. It's the settlement model that was used in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and northern Quebec. Then it's not much more than a modernization of the historic treaties, the numbered treaties 1 through 11. Simply put, this settlement model sees first nations retaining an expanded land and resource base within their traditional territories in some modified form of fee simple ownership. Add to that a collection of treaty rights — generally to hunt, fish and gather on Crown land — which are subject to general laws and a cash settlement. In terms of governance, this model features quasi-provincial law-making authority on these so-called settlement lands for the first nations and unfettered provincial authority over the rest.

           This model was used in the north by default, not by choice. With the exception of the Yukon, first nations people were a majority of the population in the settlement areas. There was no sophisticated economic structure upon which to base a different, more collaborative settlement model.

           This northern settlement model will not work in B.C. Because of early cabinet estimates of the cost of settling treaties in B.C., the federal-provincial memorandum on cost-sharing and a treaty policy called comparability, governments can't put a package together that's attractive enough to convince first nations to exchange their aboriginal rights and title for the settlement proposal. Early cabinet estimates set the per-capita value of treaties at approximately $70,000 per first nation beneficiary. However, the land valuation formula, combined with the relative scarcity of unencumbered Crown land, has thus far failed to produce a settlement offer which has been accepted by first nation citizens.

           Furthermore, I believe it's the wrong model for the twenty-first century. The current model creates a first nation jurisdictional fortress on settlement land and no vested economic or social interest in the rest of their traditional territory. It's a model of continued isolation, and I think that's unhealthy for all British Columbians. We've had 100 years of the Indian Act where government, however well intentioned, does it all for Indian bands. What makes us think that the opposite of that approach is the best solution? We need to do it together through partnerships that celebrate the special characteristics of each of the partners, not in isolation from one another.

           If we are to truly create a made-in-B.C. treaty, it also means that outcomes will be different in different areas of B.C. The outcomes need to be constructed to reflect in part the regional economy of the settlement area. What works in the far north may not be appropriate for the oil and gas region of the northeast or the urban areas of the lower mainland.

           We need to implement the following changes to the process: (1) set aside the imported northern settlement model and develop outcomes that work for B.C.; (2) consider the unique nature of each regional area and construct a settlement that adds economic, social and cultural value to that region; and (3) build settlements based on accountable partnerships, which are committed to socioeconomic equality. We need more bridges between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians and fewer fortresses of isolation.

           My last point deals with the proposed referendum. I suggest that the referendum be replaced by a series of regional round tables under the direction of the British Columbia Treaty Commission. The round tables need to be inclusive, interest-based and well facilitated. It's essential that first nations participate in these round-table discussions. This is not to replace the tripartite negotiations but to breathe new life into the negotiations.

           We need to do what we haven't done up to this point in the process: sit together as aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians and talk about what kind of B.C. we want in the post-treaty era. How will we measure success, and how can we achieve that success as partners rather than opponents?

           If, however, the government persists in its proposed referendum course of action, I propose the following referendum question: should treaties promote equality among all British Columbians based on an equality of social and economic experience while honouring the unique first nation cultural dimension in this province — yes or no?

[ Page 573 ] 

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Chris, for your presentation. Any questions from committee members?

[1220] 

           V. Anderson: Two questions, quickly. One of the things in fulfilling the gap on cultural kinds of things…. I agree wholeheartedly with that. One of the struggles, I think, on both sides — although I don't like that terminology — is to recognize that economic and social opportunities have to be done in different styles. There is an aboriginal style of doing it, and there are other styles. They complement if they work in partnership, but it's not putting on them the non-aboriginal style of economy. Of course, that would be seen most in tourism because it is their particular culture that is brought forth, but that's true in whatever else they would do as well. Is there a comment on that?

           C. Knight: The reason why I'm not doing treaties anymore is because I'm doing this community development stuff — the stuff that builds bridges, that brings people together. As with the objective I mentioned earlier that I believe first nations have as one of the core objectives of treaty-making in terms of the socioeconomic comparability, I think their approach to economics is not that much different from what we see in the mainstream economy. I've been involved in negotiating a series of agreements between first nations and private sector resource-based companies and so on. Revenues, jobs and social benefits — all of the things that we want, as non-aboriginal British Columbians — are the same things that first nations want.

           V. Anderson: Thank you.

           The second part of that. In one of the presentations we had in northern B.C., there was the suggestion from a person who looked anew at the process that if the regional aboriginal and non-aboriginal people came together in regional groupings across the province and brought their findings together in a provincial vision, we would be further ahead than we are at the moment.

           C. Knight: I couldn't agree more. I'll tell you a little story about the community of Mayo in the Yukon Territory. The mayor of the village of Mayo and the chief of the Na-Cho Ny'a'k Dun were old boyhood friends. They hunted and fished together, and they had gone to school together. They were so far out in front of the treaty train that when the federal, provincial and territorial governments finally got to town to negotiate the final agreement, they had worked out many of the details. As a matter of fact, they were so far ahead of their time that one of the things they brought to the table was the idea of a regionally based, watershed-based government that was probably 20 or 25 years ahead of its time — absolutely.

           That's why I had suggested in the paper these regional round tables. The aboriginal and non-aboriginal people who live in the Terrace and Prince Rupert areas have a better sense than we do here in Victoria or Vancouver of the kind of settlement that will work in those regions. We need to build those partnerships. The process needs to facilitate that and not separate that.

           J. Les (Chair): All right. One final question from Dave.

           D. Chutter: Is there any reason why you left out in your referendum question the environmental experience? You refer to equality of social and economic experience.

           C. Knight: That's an interesting question. No, I didn't consciously leave it out. In fact, I think it's probably wrapped up in the definition of the social experience. In many respects it's a concept of quality of rights. If we have a right to fish, we have a right to expect that the fish will be free of toxins and will be suitable to eat. So, yeah, I think it's in there in my view.

           J. Les (Chair): All right. Thank you very much, Chris, for presenting to us today. We appreciate it very much.

           The next presenter is Gary Livingston on behalf of the Mining Association of British Columbia.

           G. Livingston: Good afternoon, Chairman and committee. First of all, I'd like to thank all of you for giving us the opportunity to make this presentation to you this afternoon.

[1225] 

           First, I'd like to say that we believe the government deserves credit for having the courage to allow British Columbians the direct opportunity to have a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations. Before I get to specific recommendations, it's important to understand the kind of relationships that can result from mine development.

           The highly successful Eskay Creek mine in northwestern British Columbia is a prime example of how aboriginal communities can benefit from mine development. We've been given numbers as high as 85 percent unemployment in the communities of Telegraph Creek and Iskut. The Tahltan leaders are working hard to reduce these numbers. They see mining as one industry that can help them achieve their goal of reducing unemployment and increasing the skill level of their people.

           The relationship between the mine and the Tahltan has been a rewarding one. Since the discovery of the deposit at Eskay Creek, the Tahltan have created several corporate entities, including the Tahltan Nation Development Corp., which have various maintenance, service and construction contracts with the mine. Two hundred and fifty people work at the mine; 35 percent of them are members of the Tahltan first nation. The mine has on-the-job training programs for those workers, including service operators, mill operators, underground training and full apprenticeship programs.

           The Tahltan nation is pro-development, with the caveat that their communities and people benefit from the mines in their traditional territories. Their expectations are not different from any other community faced

[ Page 574 ] 

with high unemployment and limited opportunities, nor are these expectations unreasonable.

           The present legal, political and regulatory environment in this province with respect to aboriginal rights under future land claim agreements does not allow the exploration investor to project a satisfactory risk-reward equation ten to 20 years into the future. In short, British Columbia is simply too risky a jurisdiction in which to make mineral exploration and development expenditures. The uncertainty around the future of native land claims adds considerably to this degree of risk.

           As a consequence of this risk, annual mineral exploration expenditures in British Columbia are now about 10 percent of the level seen in the late eighties and early nineties. Natives and non-natives alike are harmed by this dramatic decline in mineral exploration development.

           The referendum process, including the question and all support materials, must address the following points in such a way as to render a clear opinion and direction relative to these issues.

           Reduce land claim–related uncertainty. The primary purpose of the referendum must lower the current land claim–related uncertainty and risk that is presently associated with investing in British Columbia.

           Must demonstrate control and responsibility. The perception of investors is that elected governments, both provincial and federal, have lost control over the allocation and management of resources. For its part, the provincial government must demonstrate its determination to regain and restore control over these critical responsibilities.

           Defend the economic interest. The Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuukw decision affirms the provincial Crown's power to infringe on aboriginal rights and title for valid economic reasons, subject to the payment of appropriate compensation. It follows that the provincial government has an obligation to all B.C. citizens to assert control over all B.C. Crown lands outside Indian settlement lands.

           Manage Crown lands for the benefit of all British Columbians and reject the concept of comanagement of the B.C. land base, with the aboriginal veto power that this implies. We cannot continue to go to court over every mining project that comes along. If the provincial government can demonstrate in the referendum question that it is prepared to do this — and provided, of course, that the results of the referendum demonstrate clear support for such an approach — it will go a long way toward restoring investor confidence in British Columbia.

[1230] 

           One jurisdiction, one manager of resources. In order for British Columbians to fully get value from the referendum process, jurisdiction over Crown land must be clear. The provincial government must be unambiguous in the rejection of the concept of comanagement or joint regulation of exploration in mining projects that fall on Crown lands outside the boundaries of specific treaty-defined settlement lands.

           Unequivocal results. The results of the referendum must be unequivocal in order to ensure increased mineral investment in mine development — a win-win outcome for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

           The challenge you face in preparing the wording of the referendum and the support material that will likely accompany the exercise is a formidable one. We believe the merits of this undertaking and the potential results it could yield are certainly worth this effort and the criticism it has generated.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Gary, for your presentation. I note with great approval that you've raised a couple of the issues we've been trying to elicit over these last several weeks, particularly with respect to the whole concept of comanagement and whether or not that should be a feature of the post-treaty environment. Jurisdictional certainty, I think, is the way I've spoken about it. I'm really pleased that you've brought that issue forward from the perspective of the mining industry.

           Any questions from committee members?

           M. Hunter: Gary, thank you. You know from my past that aboriginal involvement was a feature of the fishing industry. Of course, I support the mining industry's efforts to do what we used to do in the fishing industry, before the feds came along with the aboriginal fisheries strategy and destroyed it all.

           I would also like to thank you for putting forward, in a very forthright way, your views in defence of the economic interest of British Columbia and reminding us of the right of the provincial Crown to infringe on aboriginal rights, after due diligence and in accordance with the Sparrow and other tests set out in Supreme Court rulings.

           I just wanted to let you know I appreciate that and the firmness with which you brought those views to our attention. I personally found it refreshing and helpful, as we draw to the end of this process.

           B. Lekstrom: Just a quick question and maybe a comment regarding the issue — certainly in the northeast of the province we fall under Treaty 8 territory — and possibly the difference the mining association sees right now in having to deal under Treaty 8 in the northeast versus the uncertainty that exists in the rest of the province. Do you have any thoughts on that?

           G. Livingston: There are not many, Blair. Basically, that's oil and gas territory. There's very little mining activity in that area, so we really don't have a lot of experience in dealing in that area. From what I understand, just having the certainty of knowing…. It doesn't mean everything is perfect, but what you do have is just a much higher degree of certainty over what the rules are when you go to conduct activity.

           It goes back to this word "certainty." I know we're all saying it over and over again. The industry doesn't

[ Page 575 ] 

really care who the landlord is. All we need to know is what the rules are and who we go to for the administration of those rules. Not knowing that is what is keeping investment away.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Gary. We very much appreciate your input.

           At this point I'm going to recess the hearing until 1:30 this afternoon, when our next presenter is scheduled.

           The committee recessed from 12:34 p.m. to 1:34 p.m.

               [J. Les in the chair.]

           J. Les (Chair): Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to get the meeting back underway. We have a very full schedule of presenters this afternoon. I would remind everyone again that every presenter will have 15 minutes to present to the committee and hopefully, within that 15 minutes we can allow some time for questions as well. The first presenter this afternoon is the Victoria Aboriginal Rights Coalition represented, I believe, by Isabel Heaman. 

[1335] 

           I. Heaman: Correct. I'd just like to say that Winston Churchill said that everything looks better after lunch, so we're hoping that this is going to be the case with our presentation. I'd also like to introduce my colleagues Martin Lind and Samuel Godfrey. Martin is going to start.

           M. Lind: I was going to start by talking to some of the general principles that we'd like to see brought to the treaty process. Isabel is going to speak more specifically about the treaty process itself.

           I. Heaman: It's in two parts: first the principles and then the actual treaty process. Sorry, Martin.

           M. Lind: Okay. If you're not familiar with our group, the Aboriginal Rights Coalition is a national organization that was founded in 1975 in response to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline project. Since then we've worked with first nations across the country, including the Micmac, the James Bay Cree, the Lubicon in Alberta, the Nisga'a and first nations all throughout B.C. More importantly, our focus is in the non-native community, educating people about first nations issues in history, with an eye towards reconciliation of the issues that we face in our society today.

           In the work we do, we see ourselves as bringing an ethical perspective to these issues. We recognize that there are very important legal and economic reasons for establishing treaties, but in our view the most important and overriding vision that we'd like to see brought to the treaty process is the simple imperative that we need to do the right thing and what's fair. As a society we feel very troubled by our history with first nations. By our own laws we do not own title to the land that we live in. If we read about our history, we find it's very shocking. It's disgraceful what's been done to first nations. Also, it's very shocking that there's been so little regard to our own laws and our own traditions, which we feel form the basis of our society. As we move forward with dealing with them, we'd like to see that we don't make the same mistakes we've made in the past.

           We live in a colonial society, and we're rooted in that history. Instead of acknowledging the societies that were here when we arrived, our policies have been based on assimilation and oppression of first nations cultures. The legacy of those policies is still with us today, and we feel that treaties are as important for the non-native communities as they are for the first nations themselves. Establishing treaties will free us from that role of being oppressors who have institutionalized native disenfranchisement, poverty and cultural destruction, and treaties will enable us to say finally that we truly live in our own land. That's what we want to see be the vision in establishing treaties in B.C.

           All over the world we see conflicts that are rooted in the same type of oppressive colonial relationships between settlers and indigenous peoples who have been displaced from their lands. We've seen how these conflicts lead to hatred, bitterness and, as we've all seen in the last few months, horrific acts of violence, terrorism and war. At times it seems almost hopeless that those conflicts in other countries in the world could ever be resolved. It's refreshing to look at B.C. and think what an opportunity we have to resolve these issues with justice and fairness. I think it's well recognized that there's opportunity for prosperity and to share in the bounty of the land for everybody in our culture.

           We agree with the government that the treaty process needs to be expedited. It needs to be a top priority of the government. That said, we also recognize that there'll be a lot of challenges in establishing treaties. It's going to take a lot of courage and political will on the part of the government, and you're going to face critics who feel that their self-interest is threatened by the treaty process. What we hope you do is look forward to your future, and when you look back on the legacy of your government, you'll say: "Well, we did what we did." You don't want to look back and say that what you did at the time was based on expediency or on what was most popular with the voters. What you really want to be able to do is look your critics in the eye and say: "We did what we did because it was the right thing to do."

[1340] 

           Now, as for the referendum question, our group approached this issue with a very open mind. We really tried hard to come up with some sort of a question that would lead to a spirit of reconciliation and understanding, but we were unable to come up with any sort of question that met various tests that we applied to it. It's our recommendation that the government cancel the referendum process.

           There are three basic reasons why we feel any question is either unfair or not helpful. The first one, which

[ Page 576 ] 

I'm sure you've heard many presenters talk to, is the human justice and minority rights question. Treaties really need to be understood not as a democracy issue so much as a human justice issue. In the same way that we would never subject the rights of the accused in a trial to a public straw poll, in the same way it's inappropriate and it's unfair to subject native rights to a referendum process.

           Secondly, we tried to come up with questions that dealt specifically with the treaty process and some of the issues that are faced by negotiators. But any question that we came up with, we found, was so complex that, again, it really was not appropriate for a referendum type of approach to them. In our dealings with the public, it's been very clear to us that a large percentage of the population doesn't have a good understanding of the history of first nations in B.C., the legal issues in relation to access to resources or aboriginal title and also the principles of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

           The third type of question we came up with was what you might call a motherhood sort of question. It was so general and vague that it really begs the question: why are we wasting everybody's time asking such a question or in spending taxpayers' money pursuing a referendum on it?

           All the questions we came up with failed on one of those three points. So we really feel that any question that went to a referendum would either be unfair or be unjust, or it would not even meet the objectives of the government to receive input from the public.

           In the end, we'd also like to warn the government against using the referendum and the argument of democracy as a pretence for ignoring constitutionally recognized rights, Supreme Court decisions such as Delgamuukw and the Marshall decision or the principles of the existing treaty process.

           With that, I'd like to turn it over to Isabel.

           I. Heaman: I'm going to move on.

           When all is said and done, our country is founded on the rule of law. Regardless of what happens with the treaty process, the province needs the legal transfer of aboriginal land title. This requires a return to the negotiating table. There's really no alternative to negotiations. So knotty problems await.

           ARC Victoria has observed treaty negotiations through our participation in the South Island Regional Advisory Committee since its inception several years ago. There are three tables on South Island: Te'mexw in Victoria, Hul'qumi'num in Duncan and Snuneymuxw in Nanaimo. So we trundle up and down the Island to Sooke and various other places attending these meetings. Most RACs deal with only one table. We deal with three. Our broad exposure, we feel, gives us particularly good insight into the treaty process. Moreover, each of these three tables has developed a completely different approach to treaty-making.

           The treaty process is essentially an exercise in problem-solving. Each party has something the other wants, and each has to give up something to get something. It works best when all options are on the table. Setting preconditions skews the process. This happened after the recent election when the B.C. Liberal government changed instructions to negotiators by specifying only delegated municipal-style government and no fee simple land. These conditions present real obstacles to agreement.

           With respect to governance, the inherent right to self-government is already recognized in the constitution. It's difficult to see why any nation would give up that right for a delegated, less independent form of governance — especially since the Calder case, which argued that the Nisga'a treaty initiated an unconstitutional third order of government, was rejected by the courts and subsequently dropped. So that issue appears to be closed.

[1345] 

           As to the question of fee simple lands, the conditions prevailing on southern Vancouver Island require special consideration. The previous government realized this and changed its policy on the land-banking of private lands specifically for this area. The reserves are very small. Unlike in other areas of B.C., almost no Crown land is available. The aboriginal population is expected to show a huge increase in the future. If the people are to thrive economically, they will need land and access to resources, which is only possible by including fee simple land — for example, private forest land — as part of the settlement, not through expropriation but on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. Banking suitable land as it becomes available is the most cost-effective approach. As settlements elsewhere in B.C. will include land, to exclude available land from agreements here because of historical circumstances would be unjust and discriminatory.

           Unless the government changes its position on these two issues, it's difficult to see any treaties being successfully concluded on southern Vancouver Island. If the government is going to put conditions down that the first nations find unacceptable, they should state this right away without wasting any time so that first nations can withdraw from treaty negotiations without wasting any more time and money, and any debts they incur under previous rules should be cancelled.

           Public education, we feel, is another obstacle. The problem is that the public does not understand the need for treaties or how the process works. Influential commentators have argued long and forcefully that treaties to land title are unnecessary. Even though the courts have persistently rejected these arguments and advocated negotiation, some members of the public have taken these ideas to heart. They see treaty settlements as merely pandering to greedy and undeserving natives.

           A massive education campaign is needed to convince the public otherwise — something that's never been done. This is really important, because the lack of understanding has serious consequences. For example, look at what happened in Nanaimo when the Snuneymuxw reached an agreement with B.C. and Canada on a draft AIP. That's not that easy to do. All three negotiators agreed — right? What happened? It was blocked by local government officials in the Nanaimo district

[ Page 577 ] 

who claimed not to be represented at the table, and they demanded the right of veto. Of course B.C. and Canada represent their interests.

           There's simply no point in undertaking long and costly negotiations if the results can be overturned by officials at a lower level in pursuit of a different agenda. There are certainly difficult issues to be resolved affecting local governments — for example, taxation and comanaging adjoining jurisdictions — and resolved they should be, through negotiation. But the bottom line is: treaties are on a nation-to-nation basis. Objections from obstructive third parties should not be allowed to undermine the whole process. If the process is that vulnerable, there's no point in it.

           It will take foresight, political courage and commitment to conclude treaties that bring harmony and reconciliation to B.C. Unless it is done, however, uncertainty over land title and a substantial, permanently disaffected portion of the population will continue to disrupt economic activity in B.C. Think Sun Peaks multiplied many times all over B.C.

           In Canada in the twenty-first century our vision must encompass no less than aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities living side by side in a prosperous, mutually respectful partnership. That's it.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. Are there questions from committee members?

           B. Lekstrom: Just a couple. Thank you for your presentation. First of all, Martin, on your comments, struggling to come up with questions that would meet that…. I guess this is more of a comment than a question. This issue that we're dealing with here as a legislative committee is not about the issue of aboriginal rights. I would concur if that were the issue we were facing. This is about the issue of principles for the government to be able to take forward. This committee, as well as the government of British Columbia, recognizes the aboriginal right as designated in the constitution of Canada. So more of a statement reflecting on what you were talking about…. Certainly, it made some sense if we were dealing with the issue of aboriginal rights being put on the table.

[1350] 

           M. Lind: We like to hear that reaffirmed, for sure.

           B. Lekstrom: The other one is to Isabel, on the question of local representation, when we talk about municipal governments and so on. In your view, are you advocating that they should have no say in this and that it should be taken out of their hands?

           I. Heaman: What — the municipal governments in the treaty process?

           B. Lekstrom: Yes.

           I. Heaman: Well, there are objections and objections. The municipal government says they're not represented — right? They're represented by Canada and B.C. What I want to know is: why didn't they find out what was going on in the treaty process by attending the RAC meetings, as we did? The Nanaimo regional district claim (a) not to know what was going on and (b) that they should have a seat at the table.

           Saying that they should have a seat at the table shows that they don't understand the treaty process. I mean, to have a seat at the table, you have to have something to give up. What would the Nanaimo regional district be willing to give up? Absolutely nothing. All they want to do is sit at the table and veto anything that they don't like. That's not how the process works.

           Basically, they didn't understand that. Why they didn't go to the RAC meetings and find out what was going on, I cannot tell you, but there is such a thing as wilful ignorance. For example, the Union of B.C. Municipalities knew perfectly well about the treaty process. They have a seat on TNAC. At the meeting with TNAC that I went to, Ms. Trumper here was a representative of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, so local governments in general knew about the treaty process.

           We're in Victoria. We're a small volunteer organization, and we would drive regularly up to these meetings in Nanaimo — an hour and a half on the road, three hours of discussions in Nanaimo, an hour and a half back. On a weekday evening, they'd start at 6:30 and go to 9:30, so we spent hours. It wasn't easy for us to do this, but we did it to keep track of what was going on in treaty negotiations. Why were the Nanaimo regional district not able to stroll down the road to the Coast Bastion hotel and find out what was going on?

           J. Les (Chair): All right. That's certainly just a follow-up on that. I think it's vitally important, at the end of the day when treaties are reached, that there has to be an acceptance by all involved.

           I. Heaman: I agree.

           J. Les (Chair): Certainly, the local representation is key, because reaching an agreement and not having the acceptance of all involved is going to create additional problems.

           I. Heaman: Absolutely, but you need leadership.

           M. Lind: We had a lot of meetings with community groups in the Nanaimo area, and many of them would come to the meeting very hostile to the idea of treaties and whatever their particular interest was. It's not even coming on and saying, "Here's what we think," but just saying: "Here's the basic process, here's how it works, and here's what it's addressing." It really silenced and changed a lot of opinions.

           People came out of the meetings with completely different ideas than what they had coming in. We'd like to see the government support groups like us or do more of that sort of work themselves as well. It really makes a big difference in the community. 

[ Page 578 ] 

           I. Heaman: You know, we held meetings in Victoria and meetings in Nanaimo, and there was a big difference between the two. People in Victoria were worried about settlements and what might be in them, but the basic idea of the treaties they would accept. The people in Nanaimo were totally unprepared for treaties. At best, the response was: "What are they whining about now, those natives?" At worst, their views were completely inflammatory.

           They simply weren't prepared. They were not prepared that there might be settlements, that they might have to give up something, that there might be fishing rights to be assigned to the native people. I mean, they were ready to man the barricades on those issues, because there was no preparation.

           J. Les (Chair): Just one quick follow-up, and then I'll move on. Knowing now that the issues of rights is not what this is about, would you now rethink your opposition to the referendum?

           M. Lind: Okay. It's not that….

           I. Heaman: It's the question. Well, first of all, I don't see why the government wants to tie its hands in this way. Any answer that comes up…. Treaty negotiations are very complicated — right? By getting into a referendum, the government is essentially tying its hands. It's ruling out certain options. What if it rules out options and finds it can't live with that?

           There was a meeting last night at the university with a very learned lady talking about referenda in different places. What she did say was that if you have a really complicated issue that people don't understand, they will tend to vote no to preserve the status quo.

[1355] 

           This is the experience of Charlottetown. Nobody understood the Charlottetown accord, so it was turned down regardless of all the elites saying what a good thing it was. The problem with the referendum is: what are you going to live with if the answer is no? If you have a question like, "Do you approve of treaties?" and the answer from the public is no, that means you'll be in a legal quagmire for at least the next 15 to 50 years. If you have a sort of feel-good question like, "Do you want reconciliation with first nations?" and the answer is no, what are you going to do? Drop cluster bombs on Indian reserves? You have to live with the possibility of a negative answer that lands you in a real pickle.

           B. Lekstrom: I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I have a lot of faith in the people of British Columbia and our country to understand the issues.

           I. Heaman: If they understand the issues.

           B. Lekstrom: We can probably debate the issues on Charlottetown. I think that was turned down based on the people's feelings of our country.

           J. Les (Chair): Okay. I have time for one quick question from Mike Hunter.

           M. Hunter: I don't have a question, Mr. Chairman, but as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Nanaimo — I'm not going to get into debate with the witnesses — I can tell you that the people I represent, of all political stripes, are very sensitive to the aboriginal issue. I do not take your criticism. This is a public meeting, and I'm going to go on the public record to say that the views of people in my community are the views that I'm trying to represent. Whether they're right, wrong or indifferent, they are views that have great validity in my community. I just need to say that for the record. Thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): We've clean run out of time, so I must let you go. Thank you for your presentation.

           The next presenter is Larry Commodore from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.

           L. Commodore: Hi, John.

           J. Les (Chair): Hi, Larry.

           L. Commodore: We're from the Chilliwack area. I think we probably disagree on more things than we agree on, but it's good to see a familiar face here today.

           I'm Larry Commodore, the forest and indigenous peoples campaigner for Western Canada Wilderness Committee. You might recall two other presentations given to this select committee by Wilderness Committee representatives Joe Foy and Paul George. Both Joe and Paul voiced the Wilderness Committee's opposition to the whole idea of a referendum on principles to guide treaty negotiations. For various reasons, both essentially advised that the referendum idea be abandoned and that instead the provincial government should get down to the serious work of fixing what has to be fixed to achieve fair, just and lasting treaty settlements. So I find myself here today, despite some initial reluctance, with a purpose of expanding on some of what has already been said on behalf of the Wilderness Committee and perhaps give some positive indications of what should be done.

           For the most part, however, I think the main reason I have been urged to speak to this committee is because of my perspective as a native and in particular because I've been active in aboriginal rights issues since my early teens. Up until April of this year I was an elected representative of my people of the Stó:lo nation community of Soowahlie, 14 years on council, two years as chief. To be clear, however, I'm not speaking for a particular native community or nation, but rather I'm speaking in a general way from the perspective of a native.

           That's what I want to emphasize today: perspective. There is a particular perspective that comes with being native. In my estimation, it is this perspective that is often missing in the equation of aboriginal policy in B.C. To put this another way, it's like we live in two different worlds: the native and the non-native. Rarely, it seems, do these worlds intersect. 

[ Page 579 ] 

[1400] 

           In the British Columbia political realm, this situation manifests itself in the provincial and federal governments' non-recognition of aboriginal title and rights, which in turn stems from an antiquated notion that in Latin is known as terra nullius. Terra nullius, unknown or uninhabited land, refers to the idea that the assertion of Crown sovereignty over unceded aboriginal lands was perfectly legitimate. In this view, aboriginal people were considered primitive and uncivilized — no better than beasts in the field, as B.C. colonial administrator Joseph Trutch put it — and thus incapable of holding title and rights to land and resources.

           This is one of the main reasons why, for the greater part of this province's history, there have been no treaties with first nations. Certainly, over time the terra nullius proposition has been modified and in some cases obscured by cloaking it in different language. For all intents and purposes, however, the basic features of this inherently offensive view seem to yet remain a fundamental principle of B.C. aboriginal policy. Thus, from this perspective, what is questioned is not the legitimacy of Crown sovereignty but the legitimacy of aboriginal sovereignty.

           Once again, however, what is missing in this equation is the native perspective. The Supreme Court of Canada has taken note of this situation. In the court's ruling in Sparrow, for example, it said: "It is…crucial to be sensitive to the aboriginal perspective itself on the meaning of the rights at stake." In other rulings, as well, in the last 20 years or so the courts have said essentially the same thing and in fact have established criteria for how this is to be done. What the courts have also said is that the best solution to unresolved aboriginal rights is through political negotiations. If the issues are not resolved through negotiation, the question then becomes, as retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer put it: do you want nine lawyers in Ottawa to decide on these important issues?

           The fact remains: we have to get on with the serious work of negotiations, which must begin, as I've said, with taking into account the aboriginal perspective. At the end of the day, it seems only common sense. If you want to build a lasting relationship, you must have some fundamental understanding of the other party to the relationship. From my experience and in my view, that is the heart of the matter and the main reason why there have been no treaty settlements in the eight-year lifespan of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

           I mentioned litigation earlier, because that was the route that the B.C. Liberals in opposition seemed to want to take. As you on the committee will no doubt recall, a lawsuit was filed in the B.C. Supreme Court in the names of Gordon Campbell, Mike de Jong and Geoff Plant, which challenged the self-government component of the Nisga'a agreement. As you might also recall, that case was lost on every count in a 31-page judgment handed down on July 24 of last year. But that was not to be the end of it. It then evolved into a promise that each of you on this standing committee campaigned on a few short months back, which was to "seek clear direction from the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional questions about aboriginal self-government." You might further recall, because it wasn't too long ago, that the now B.C. Attorney General, Geoff Plant, said the province would not be pursuing the case.

           Just as the B.C. Liberals have dropped that campaign promise, so should this referendum promise be dropped, for if the intention of this whole exercise is, as Chairman John Les said when this committee was in Chilliwack on October 17, to build interest and support for the treaty process, then there are better ways of doing that than a referendum. Referendums are not built to deal with complex issues and abstract principles. They do not allow for defining the best way of dealing with a problem or for continuing discussion on alternative solutions. Instead, referendums encourage confrontation, and in this proposed referendum in particular, it will encourage the notion that once again non-natives are attempting to impose their views on natives and that once again the aboriginal perspective is not taken into account.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Larry, for your presentation. Are there questions from committee members?

[1405] 

           V. Anderson: Thank you very much, Larry. I don't know if it can be done briefly or not, but can you give the essence of what you're referring to as the native perspective which is relevant to what we're doing at this particular moment?

           L. Commodore: The essence of what I consider the aboriginal perspective?

           V. Anderson: Yeah. You're talking about the aboriginal perspective. I agree with you that that's very important.

           L. Commodore: Well, one principle that I've often heard quoted by the B.C. Liberals is equality. That's what the aboriginal perspective is. We're asking for equality in terms of Crown sovereignty and aboriginal sovereignty, and we're seeking co-existence of those two different sovereignties.

           J. Les (Chair): Any further questions from anyone else?

           Thank you very much, Larry, for taking the trouble to come and visit with us in Victoria.

           The next presenter is Clive Tanner. We're ready to go, Clive, anytime you are.

           C. Tanner: Ladies and gentlemen, this is my second time around at this game, and it's the third time that the province has had a committee going around talking to people about this subject. The first one was around '85-86, when the Socred government was here.

           I've given you copies of my previous appearance before your predecessors in 1997, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, for a purpose. That includes a 16-page paper that contains my personal

[ Page 580 ] 

background and my involvement with land claims going back to 1973-74. That paper also contains a number of my recommendations in 1987. I would like to draw your attention to two of them.

           Firstly, I have read the first 14 Hansard reports of proceedings of your travelling around the province, and I've heard mention many times of the fact that one of the things you're doing is educating the public. After reading a number of your reports of the proceedings and considering the number of days of legislative debate on the Nisga'a treaty and remembering the hype around the Nisga'a treaty settlement, I realize that we have failed miserably in telling our story. It is no better today than it was five years ago. Many of you have stated that you're educating the public. Well, here's a stack of reports from the last time. That was the education that they got last time. I wouldn't bet there's more than 5,000 people in the province who've read them. I don't know that, but I would guess not many, including some MLAs.

           Secondly, I pleaded with the committee not to recommend a referendum. You can read my reasons in 1997, if you're interested. I should tell you that I have not changed my mind. I came very close after reading Gordon Gibson's and Dr. Paul Tennant's presentations. Incidentally, I strongly recommend Gordon Gibson's paper. It's one of the most forthright and honest documents I've seen about land claims.

           But many of your presenters whose presentations appeal to me don't want you to have a referendum. Virtually all those people who have been or are currently involved in treaty tables and have been in front of you said "don't." Mostly the first nations people who spoke to you said don't. I say, for the second time, don't have a referendum. I have read no editorial or commentary, I have heard no television or radio point of view, I have seen no academic treatise, and I know of no business organization, including the Vancouver Board of Trade and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, that supports a referendum.

[1410] 

           So you made an election promise. Well, my friends, it takes a big man to say: "I've changed my mind after due consideration." But if he's forthright and prepared to face some criticism, and if he has 77 of 79 seats — which in my view is a mandate — and his popularity is in the 60 or 70 percent range, then your advice, when you go back, should be: "Our first recommendation is don't hold a referendum." To quote Gordon Gibson, when he was talking about Indian Affairs being in Ottawa: "…the sense that the decision-makers don't live with what they're deciding." He's right, and that goes for the referendum voters too.

           From here on in I try to get positive. I've tried to show you some of the mechanics of what you're undertaking now from my point of view. You've seen a lot of these before, but I thought I'd put them all on one page for you — some of my points of view, anyway. Ninety-seven percent are making a decision for 3 percent. The voting population in this province is basically south of Hope. The vast majority of the population don't understand land claims. In fact, it should be called a first nations claim.

           Is this really a referendum that's binding on government, or is it a plebiscite? How much do the thousands upon thousands of immigrants in the last 20 years — for example, from China, Eastern Europe or Pakistan — know or care about first nations? They are busy learning to live in their new country, just as I did when I was an immigrant 40 years ago. Should there be a separate first nations vote? That is something you should consider. What happens if your referendum fails? What happens if it fails in some areas? Do we publish local results? Quite frankly, it's too late. You should have had the referendum, if you'd wanted one, in '91. You've got to write a preamble. How are you going to just keep to the facts? Is this going to be like a regular election, or is it going to be by mail? And what percentage turnout legitimizes your referendum?

           It seems to me the next thing you've got to face is what the question's going to be. Is it going to be a question of principle or a question of detail? If it's a question of principle, principle is defined by Mr. Chutter in one of your reports as beliefs or values that are shared by all people. Is all people 97 percent? If principles, how many? We currently have 19 principles of negotiation. Apart from the admitted advantage — there is some advantage in a pre-acceptance of treaty results — what other advantages are there to a referendum, unless the question begs the answer?

           Finally, on the principles section there are too many constitutional and legal precedents to explain the question in a preamble. If you get into detail of the question, what follows is a list of items which could be included. Most of them were mentioned by the presenters in the first 14 briefs and agreed to have merit by at least one of you MLAs around this table. I'm not going to read them all, but you can see there's about 20-odd there. I could probably think of another 20. My question to you is: if you're not going to ask particular questions, which ones are you going to leave out? All of them deserve merit.

           It was illustrated by a presentation you had from the Cattlemen's Association in either Chilliwack or Kelowna — I've forgotten which — from a very knowledgable gentleman, who asked you to ask five questions that pertain to his particular interest: cattle. If you ask those five questions, you're going to completely confuse the public. And if you ask those five, why wouldn't you ask my 20? It seems to me you're stuck with a matter of principle.

           Repeatedly throughout your hearings I've heard people talk about the failure of the treaty negotiations from '92 to 2001. I'd like to quote Mr. Paul Tennant: "So my view is that the longer treaties take, the better, providing some progress is being made and providing some understanding is being attained." Incidentally, you should all read Mr. Tennant's presentation at least two more times, slowly. I don't agree with his final result, but it's very well worth reading. Incidentally, I don't agree with Gibson's final result either, but that's well worth reading.

[ Page 581 ] 

           There are approximately 40 or 45 treaties on the table today. Frankly, a referendum gives a lie to our participation in the treaty negotiations in the last ten years. It is being said we're wasting our time. The Nisga'a treaty took 23 years to negotiate after 100 years of trying to get to the table, but I don't think it's a waste of time.

[1415] 

           They can, of course, be improved — and more of that later. In the meantime, we've accomplished the following in my view. These are all important things, I think, that have been accomplished in the last ten years. We've built some trust and understanding going both ways. Of the 40 or 45 treaties on the table we've got some hope started. Third parties, particularly municipalities, now understand the need for cooperation. I'd recommend that you all talk to the town of Ladysmith. There's a lesson for all of us there in what they've done, particularly Gord Horth, the administrator. All sides better understand the parameters and that cooperation works better than fighting.

           We have experience on which we can improve. Nisga'a is a benchmark; it's not a template. The treaty talks illustrate that the public, while interested and sympathetic, is no better educated today than it was five years ago, the last time your committee went around.

           During treaty discussions there have been only limited confrontations, mostly from reserves not in the process. We have learnt the importance of interim agreements. The negotiators are not now reporting to a government who were fraudulently elected, couldn't manage a peanut stand and were wimpy in their convictions. I'm a Liberal; I guess you've guessed that.

           How to improve the treaty process: (a) publish and discuss the B.C. Principles for Treaty Negotiations. I've attached it, because there's a little bit of confusion here. It's this one, not the 19 principles; (b) explore the possibility of universal principles with the First Nations Summit, including taxation, comanagement of resources, mining and forestry, not fish, education, etc.; (c) discuss the possibility of a reasonably simple, overarching, provincewide agreement vis-à-vis the Yukon; (d) discuss staged agreements — land, resources, cost-sharing — without each treaty having to be complete unto itself; (e) find areas of mutual, regional or group interest; (f) agree to some ten- or 20-year trial periods, particularly in self-government areas; and (g) look to experienced, local B.C. negotiators with each first nation's application and investigate why there's been such a high turnover of negotiators on both sides since we've started.

           Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to close by saying this. I've tried to be positive and offer some alternatives to improve treaty-making. I hope they help you. If you insist on going ahead with this referendum, call it a plebiscite only — and non-binding on government.

           Ladies and gentlemen, if you insist on going ahead with this treaty process in British Columbia, be assured that I'll work as hard as I can and am able to get a positive result. Ladies and gentlemen, you may call on me in any way that you think I can help you.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Clive, for your presentation. Perhaps we might hold you to that offer you've just made. Frankly, I think all British Columbians will need all the help we can get to accomplish the process that is set before us.

           Any questions?

           V. Anderson: Clive, you've given the principles here and listed them. Can you explain — and I think it's important to be on the record — where these principles have come from and why they're the ones you particularly think are important to put forward, as against others that we've heard about?

           C. Tanner: The attached page that I have?

           V. Anderson: Yes.

           C. Tanner: They came from the provincial government in the last round of negotiations.

           G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation, Clive. I wondered if you could enlarge a little bit — I know you've had some experience on it — on the provincewide agreement with the Yukon, which was sort of an umbrella for all of them, and how it then worked with the local….

           C. Tanner: It's a fairly wide subject. I started my involvement in '73. Basically, they broke down after about five or six years, and they walked away from them. One of the reasons they broke down is that there were a lot of young people coming into the process who weren't happy with what the older people — the people of my age — had negotiated up to that time. They changed, and they made a decision to see if they could get an umbrella agreement with some general principles in it, and then each band, the 14 of them, would endorse that agreement and have special detailed agreements themselves.

           Eight of the bands have now signed the umbrella agreement; six still haven't signed, primarily because of detail. What they did was they moved forward. Of the 198 treaties all over British Columbia that we've got resolved, there's got to be general things that are going to be the same. I made a couple of suggestions.

[1420] 

           M. Hunter: Clive, thank you for your presentation. I want to go back to the attachment, which I see came from this committee. You referred in your brief to 1991 and how we should have held a referendum then. My concern — you might want to comment on it — is this. Yes, on January 30, 1991, there were some principles, established by the government of the day, brought when British Columbia came to the table. These principles are different than the principles that resulted from the consultation that took place in 1990. I guess the managers of what you call the peanut stand were able to change them.

           Do you not think that going to seek public opinion on principles, which then become much more difficult

[ Page 582 ] 

for governments of different stripes to change, is a worthwhile exercise?

           C. Tanner: I'm afraid I don't. If you want to develop another set of principles, with the majority that you've got, you've got a mandate to do those yourself. You people are specialists. The public just doesn't understand such a convoluted, complicated subject. They elected you to make that decision for them. I think you put your seat up for risk when you go to the next election. If they don't like it, they're going to throw you out. I don't think they will. I think the public want you to make the decision.

           If you want to change the set of principles, that's fine, but once you get them, I think it's absolutely essential that you broadcast them any and every way you can. You should have speakers going to Rotarian clubs, to the Kiwanis, to every social club you can think of. You should have people who go on the air. You need people to go everywhere you possibly can to say: "This is what we're trying to do."

           How many times in the last month have you heard people talk about private property — maybe they're going to lose private property? It's a real, genuine fear out there. Private property is not on the table unless it's a willing seller and a willing buyer. I think that's the case in Nanaimo.

           Sure you've got problems, but the problems can't be resolved for you. You've got a responsibility as elected MLAs to make that decision. You weren't elected to send out inquiries You weren't elected to send out questionnaires. You were elected to make decisions. Now get on and make 'em. [Applause.] Can you hear?

           V. Anderson: Thank you, Clive.

           Following that up, the process as it's planned out at the present moment is that having listened to what the public does or doesn't know, either way…. We've heard from a great many people who have, from their personal experience, good knowledge provincially and locally, because they have been involved in interaction and discussions on an ongoing basis. Out of this, if this committee follows through on its mandate, it will present suggested principles for B.C.'s ongoing participation to revive and improve the process. These will go to the Legislature to be approved by the Legislature to go out to the people.

           C. Tanner: I'm with you up to now.

           V. Anderson: The people at that time will have the opportunity to speak, to say that they either endorse or don't endorse the principles that the Legislature has approved. If you're right in your principle that we have a mandate and that they will support us, then presumably there is a good possibility that they will support those principles. If they don't, perhaps the Legislature has to go back and re-examine itself.

           Now, that's the process as planned. What is your response, please?

           C. Tanner: Let me just tell you a couple of things about referendums. First of all, you can't hold a referendum on a moral question; it's got to be on a legal question. Under what legislation would we hold a referendum and for what reason — as a directive to government? What happens if the referendum changes during the time the referendum is out there? It happens. It starts out one thing, but by the time you've discussed it, it becomes something else. You can't withdraw it. You're stuck with it.

           It's not like legislation. If you make a mistake in legislation, you can go back and do it again. In fact, coming in here, I hear that it looks like the federal government is going to change their legislation on protecting us, and I think they should. I'm getting off subject.

[1425] 

           I doubt whether your referendum is even legal, but if it is legal, I guarantee you're going to be challenged by somebody, probably under federal legislation. But you're going to be challenged. If you lose the challenge, that's your second or third law case you've lost. You're going to have egg all over your face.

           The government of Quebec gave itself wiggle room. When they put their crummy referendum to the people, they gave themselves wiggle room so that they could get out and negotiate after to the federal government in case they didn't really want to separate all that much. You've got to do that too. But do you really want to do that if you're talking about principles?

           There's an ability, believe it or not, for your government to be blackmailed by a group who's got some fair clout in the province to say: "If you don't withdraw it, if you don't do this or you don't do that, we're going to withdraw our support." That's something you'd better consider.

           If voters don't understand the subject of a referendum — and if you have more than a couple of principles, I don't think they will, and I doubt whether they'll even understand two, unless they're very simple — their inclination is to vote no. Generally, voters aren't clear on how the referendum is going to help them, what it's going to do for them, how it's going to affect their lives, so they'll probably vote no. Folks, I hate to ask you this but I'm going to anyway. Is the referendum an attempt to get out of an obligation? You could be accused of that.

           Just as a matter of interest, here's a little bit of history for you. Canada has had four referendums that I can recall. My dates aren't right on, but we've had four. In 1944 they had one on conscription. It passed, and it was the beginning of the reinvigoration of the Quebec separatist movement. It's the only one that's passed. In '77 or so we had one on separation in Quebec, and it lost 40-50. In '95 we had one on separation in Quebec, and they lost 49-51. You remember what a tough time that was for us all. In 1991 they had Charlottetown. It lost — 68 percent in British Columbia. It lost because it was so complicated that everybody found something to hate in it. They were all politically motivated referenda. Think about it. This is what you're taking on.

           Folks, one of the major reasons I didn't run again is because I didn't agree with our leader on this subject. I

[ Page 583 ] 

didn't like the job much either. [Laughter.] You're welcome.

           The fact of the matter is that my leader and I…. I'm as proud of him as punch, and I think he's doing a hell of a job, but he's wrong on this. I think he should stand up and say: "I made a mistake." So should you all.

           J. Les (Chair): On that note, Clive, I'll let you go. Thank you for your very nice presentation.

           C. Tanner: Thank you for listening. I appreciate it.

           J. Les (Chair): The next presenter is Kimberly Lineger from Saltspring Island.

              [B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

           K. Lineger: Well I don't know if I can follow that up, but I have pretty much the same message to say. I think I'm going to talk a little bit about our group first. We're citizens, and we're here because we said: "How would we ever answer your referendum question?" By asking that question, it opened up a whole can of worms for us, like what information would we need to know and how would we get that information to our community. So I'll talk a little bit about our group, and then I'll talk about how we think you guys should approach this.

           Salt Spring Islanders for Justice and Reconciliation began from the restoring rights relations program of the Canadian ecumenical coalition, Ten Days for Global Justice. Jill Harris, former chief of the Penelakut band, spoke to our Saltspring group in January 2001 and challenged us to learn more about the historical relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples.

           People in non-aboriginal communities are alienated from certain aspects of our history, and this creates gaps in our knowledge which gets people charged up over treaty negotiation issues. This reflects what people really don't know about first nations issues. By understanding the past, we can begin to understand the present.

[1430] 

           The purpose of our group is to provide our community an opportunity to learn more about the treaty process and to give our community a voice in the ongoing negotiations. Group membership is composed of interested community members who have met frequently throughout the year to learn more about treaties and first nations issues in general. To achieve our goals, members of our group have attended the main table meeting of the Hul'qumi'num treaty group in July 2001, and just recently we attended one of their board meetings. We're also looking forward to meeting members of the Saanich first nations. Both groups have territorial claims on Saltspring Island. Our group has also secured a seat on the South Island regional advisory committee whereby our community might achieve direct representation in the treaty process. In the last month we've begun to function as a liaison between the RAC and the community of Saltspring Island. We're continuing to host public information meetings and see the potential for bridge-building between our communities.

           We like to think that our group might be seen as a positive example of how communities can become more informed about treaty matters, taking a more active role in negotiations. If community groups such as ours had the support of all three parties in negotiations, our work would be even more effective.

           As part of our ongoing process of engaging in public dialogue, we provide the following comments regarding a referendum on treaty negotiations. The first is: should the referendum be held? The government has mandated your committee with formulating questions to put to B.C. voters in a referendum on treaty negotiations to be held sometime in the next year. This government says it wants to engage the public in a constructive and useful discussion that will reinvigorate the treaty negotiation process, but we fear just the opposite will be the result. This government also states it's committed to the process of negotiating treaties with first nations, so why hold a referendum?

           Recognizing that the committee's terms of reference do not include considering whether to hold a referendum, there's a number of issues we would like to address before considering which treaty principles should be considered as referendum questions. It cannot be assumed that a referendum on treaty negotiations will automatically make the government more accountable than previous governments or that it will meet the government's stated goal of public participation.

           The general purpose of referenda is to allow politicians to provide their electorate a direct vote on issues considered by the voters to be of fundamental importance to the way we live. During the ratification process of the Nisga'a AIP, many British Columbians agreed that negotiation of treaties with first nations was just such an issue.

           A second purpose of referenda is to make the government more accountable to the people by submitting to the electorate a policy decision on a specific issue. However, important questions must be asked, such as: "Will referenda on treaty negotiations make the government more accountable?" and "Are referenda the best vehicle to achieve public input?" The mere fact that a government has called a referendum, has campaigned in favour of the proposal and even expects to win the vote is not a guarantee of success. It still controls the agenda to a certain degree. As such, governments may choose not to submit all issues to a referendum, in effect manipulating the issues that the government decides are too controversial, do not meet its political agenda or lack appropriate support. The issues that this government holds back can have a negative impact on the credibility of the referenda process.

           Effective referenda are those that deal only with matters over which the government has power and authority. In terms of treaty negotiations in B.C., the Treaty Commission established in 1993 is the keeper of the process. In the current tripartite negotiation process between first nations, the federal government and the province, each party has the equal opportunity and the

[ Page 584 ] 

right to have decision-making authority during treaty negotiations.

           In a presentation to cabinet on October 3, Attorney General Geoff Plant recognized that treaty negotiations were not a situation where one party, or any one of three parties, could unilaterally impose an outcome and that the treaty process was also voluntary, where no first nation was required to participate. If this is the case, does the B.C. government truly have the power and authority to deal with treaty issues on its own? Can it negotiate on some issues while ignoring others?

           Federal Indian Affairs minister Robert Nault does not support B.C.'s decision to hold a referendum, and he does not intend to wait for B.C. to sort out a referendum if it means stalling the process. This could mean that where B.C. has stepped back from the negotiation table, as it has in Westbank over governance issues, the federal government and the first nation could enter into a bilateral agreement, effectively shutting B.C. out of the negotiation process.

           First nations continue to voice their concerns about holding a referendum on treaty negotiations, and the First Nations Summit is asking its members to boycott the referendum process. If we remember that the treaty negotiation process is voluntary, what can we expect if first nations walk away?

           The usefulness of a referendum question in government decision-making is fundamentally linked to the question itself. Referendum questions need to be neutral, clear, concise and capable of being answered definitively by the answers posed. A question that is inherently biased or attempts to collapse too many issues into one question could be misleading. Such a question might not only produce ambiguous results that may be hard, if not impossible, to implement but could also undermine the credibility of the referendum process. It is possible that questions may produce results that are in conflict with one another or lead to confusion. For example, questions having multiple choice answers have the potential for splitting the vote, with no one answer providing a clear majority. If issues in referenda are reduced to overly simplified choices, the ability of voters to arrive at compromises accommodating greater popular support is limited.

[1435] 

           There must be confidence in running the vote and tally, as we have witnessed with previous referenda in Quebec where questions have been raised regarding the integrity of the voting process. A lack of confidence can and does undermine the credibility of the results.

           Often votes have been criticized as being in control of the government, which in this case particularly is not neutral on the outcome. The Liberal Party questioned the validity of the Nisga'a ratification vote on just such grounds. Additionally, lower voter turnout for the referendum could also have a negative impact on the validity of the results, particularly when segments of the population have indicated they will boycott participation in the referendum process.

           In terms of campaign rules, it's important to strike a balance between enabling groups with limited or no resources, such as our own, to provide non-interest specific materials and restricting groups with unlimited resources to monopolize advertising to advance their own interests. The referendum should not become a process of bought-and-paid-for democracy. When faced with an onslaught of interest-specific information, voters lack the expertise to weigh all the consequences of a particular proposal and the time to acquire and assimilate other positions to make an informed decision. This leads the way for referendum advertising to be dominated by biased information provided by moneyed interests.

           To prevent this from happening, people who vote in the referendum will need to know what they want, be informed about the issues and be comfortable with voting on the referendum questions. If people are not adequately informed about the issues and do not have a clear picture of what they want to happen with treaty negotiations, they will likely vote no or maintain the status quo. As we've heard from presenters and first nations from across the province, maintaining the status quo is not enough.

           In terms of implementing the results, one of the differences between an ordinary election and a referendum is that a referendum produces direct, immediate, tangible results. With referenda, the voters address issues of interest directly and instruct their governments as a whole on how to act. For this reason, the degree of support necessary in a referendum to acquire implementation may need to be higher than a simple majority. For example, the Nisga'a AIP required a simple majority for ratification of the AIP, while ratification of government provisions within the agreement were higher.

           Finally, in terms of the binding effect, the credibility of referenda as a means of involving voters directly in government decision-making is related to the ability of voters to have confidence that their wishes will be implemented in good faith. The referendum process is unpredictable at the best of times, and results may not always provide enough information for government to take appropriate action. For example, big referenda questions may be appropriate for forming general policy guidelines but totally ineffective in providing direction for specific action. The binding effect is what distinguishes referenda from being merely consultative or advisory votes.

           To date the treaty process has cost roughly $500 million after eight years of effort. In this period of fiscal restraint, can the government justify the expenditure of more taxpayer dollars to obtain referendum results that may not provide the mandate it seeks? Wouldn't taxpayer money be more appropriately spent on reinvigorating the treaty process to include meaningful ongoing public participation, education and dialogue rather than this one-shot attempt by government to obtain public input?

           A majority of first nations have characterized the referendum process as an attempt to subject minority rights to the tyranny of the majority. I have not a lot of experience with this, so I'm just going to give some brief comments.

[ Page 585 ] 

           Bill Wilson, co-chair of the First Nations Summit, expressed his concern that a referendum will inflame a lot of people who are now angry. Given a lack of information regarding issues surrounding treaty negotiations, this could lead to a race-based knee-jerk response by non-aboriginal communities. Referenda are extremely susceptible to emotional propaganda campaigns, and non-aboriginal communities, while not intentionally racist, may rely upon these and other stereotypical images of aboriginal people to form their opinion on treaty issues. The use of a referendum to resolve broad treaty issues is fraught with problems. It is also questionable whether the referendum process can address the number of concerns people have regarding the treaty process itself, let alone the principles for negotiation.

           Now I'm going to talk a little bit about the principles for negotiations. The government says principles guiding the treaty negotiation process will be strengthened through public input. Which guiding principles — those based on the 19 recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force and the last eight years of negotiation of process, or a new set of principles? Will the B.C. government be able to negotiate in good faith while changing the rules in the middle of the talks? Again, if we remember first nations involvement in the process is voluntary, what can we expect if they decide to walk away?

[1440] 

           The British Columbia Claims Task Force, established in 1991 and made up of representatives from first nations, the federal government and the provincial government, spent six months seeking public input and meeting with a variety of people who had significant interest and experience in relevant negotiations. Based upon the materials and suggestions collected, the task force made 19 recommendations. These recommendations included the establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission and provided a negotiation process to ensure that they proceeded in a fair, impartial, effective and understandable manner.

           B.C.'s treaty negotiations are indeed difficult, being described as the most complex in Canada if not the world. This complexity, not to mention the 150-year history preceding the talks, has resulted in movement that has been painfully slow. The general perception is that the treaty process is not working and has stalled. Further, there are concerns that the whole process can come to a grinding halt if the government tries to unilaterally impose radical changes to the negotiation objectives and principles. We also have to recognize that the time spent to date has not been entirely wasted. Slow progress has been made and can still be made in developing trust between first nations and governments.

           The B.C. electorate cannot be asked to decide whether aboriginal title or inherent right to self-government exists. These are protected, to some degree, by the Constitution Act, 1982, and reinforced through Supreme Court rulings handed down over the past three decades. Consequently, Premier Campbell has stated that principles to be voted on could include such issues as establishment of a municipal model of aboriginal self-government and the protection of private property rights, just as an example. How does the government expect to reconcile these referendum principles to those contained in the framework agreements that have been signed with first nations as part of the current treaty process? First nations are not prepared to accept this government's position on self-government and have rejected the proposed referendum.

           The B.C. Treaty Commission, through its tripartite process, has developed positions regarding negotiation principles that address such issues as fairness, affordability and certainty. There are mechanisms in place for having discussions about negotiating principles and for making changes to the tripartite process. One party taking unilateral action in a tripartite process can be very destructive for its continued functioning. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how a referendum will assist in clarification of negotiation principles, except perhaps to further narrow the provincial government's mandate. If this is the case, how can the government justify negotiating in good faith?

           In its presentation to the committee, the B.C. Treaty Commission has urged the B.C. government to use the 19 guiding principles and the agreements that are already in place to move forward. We support the commission's recommendation. By reinvigorating the treaty process, the government can take a more constructive approach to consultation with the public and will provide the appropriate input on negotiation principles as they relate to existing agreements as well as to future agreements.

           The route to a realistic solution for first nation treaties does not lie with a referendum but in looking at the treaty process and determining if there is a way to reinvigorate the process and accelerate the resolution of treaty issues.

           B. Lekstrom: Two minutes, Kimberly, if you could. Sorry.

           K. Lineger: Oh, sorry. I'll finish this, and you can read the rest.

           B. Lekstrom: All right.

           K. Lineger: It seems rather backward to be deciding negotiating principles if the current treaty process is not working or is perceived to be not working. The B.C. Treaty Commission has undergone an extensive review of the treaty process, determining what action is necessary to improve the process and have it function more effectively. Our group strongly urges the government to make the current treaty process work.

           Then we sort of talk about how you can fix the treaty process as it relates to public participation from citizens.

           B. Lekstrom: Kimberly, if you have a couple of key points you'd like to touch on, I think we have time for that. It's just that with the five additional pages and

[ Page 586 ] 

knowing the speakers list we have to come, it would be….

           K. Lineger: I'd just like to say that you've got it backwards. You're holding a referendum before you've even decided whether your treaty process works. You're asking the public — me, the public — to vote on a referendum question when I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. If I'm representative of the general public and you're going to have this referendum, I think you should spend some time, using the treaty process that you have in place, to get me the information that I need.

           I can go back to my community and say, "Hey, this is what's going on," and I'll be more than happy to do it, but I can't do it if there's no information coming out of the treaty process or from government on all of it. I don't know about the Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and I really don't care. I'm more interested about what's happening in my community, how my neighbour, the Hul'qumi'num group, is going to relate to me when this is all done, because I'm going to have to live with your decision. That's all I've got to say.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much, Kimberly.

           I will look to brief questions.

           V. Anderson: I wanted to thank you, Kimberly. For somebody who doesn't know anything, according to your comment, you've done extremely well.

           K. Lineger: I did a lot of reading in the last six months so I could write this paper.

           V. Anderson: You summarized a lot of what we've heard — not everything we've heard, but a lot of it. You emphasized the part on education. That was in the original treaty process when it was passed in '92. It is, by all agreement, part of the treaty process that has not taken place. Partly the difficulty is because…. That's what we have to deal with.

[1445] 

           K. Lineger: My only follow-up to that is that you're going to ask us to vote on a referendum and you're recognizing that the education of the people hasn't been done. How can you can expect us, if you know that no education has taken place, to respond in any reasonable way to your referendum question? We didn't even try and pose a referendum question because every question that we tried to pose, we said: "Well, we don't know this. We don't know that. We don't know this. We don't know that." If we don't know that, and we're a pretty educated group of academics, you can be darn sure that the guy who's running the gas station in Ganges isn't going to know how to answer that question.

           B. Lekstrom: Be careful. There are some highly educated people who work at gas stations.

           K. Lineger: Hey, we've got a very motivated group on Saltspring. That's why we're here.

           B. Lekstrom: I will entertain one more quick question, and then we have to move on.

           G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. I read a bit further on. You've been involved with the RAC?

           K. Lineger: We've just started. We've gone to one RAC meeting, and they're asking us to redo their terms of reference. So, like, we've got a lot of experience there.

           G. Trumper: You make the comment here that there's no mechanism for accountability. I was going to ask you about that, but as you haven't been there very much, it's unfair to ask you the question.

           K. Lineger: I used to work for the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. That was my job years and years ago. So when this whole RAC process and chambers got involved, one of the comments that came back from chambers of commerce was: "We're going and making these recommendations to this RAC, and they're not hearing a word we're saying, because they're going to the negotiation table and doing whatever the hell they want. Then they're coming back and giving us an agreement that doesn't even sound anything like what we talked about at our RAC meeting."

           G. Trumper: What you're saying is that there should be some mechanism so that you at least know whether or not any concerns or recommendations that you made are being heard.

           K. Lineger: Are being heard. At least let us know that you're hearing them and how you're applying them to the negotiation process.

           B. Lekstrom: Kimberly, before you leave, one comment on page 9, second paragraph, where you say: "The B.C. electorate cannot be asked to decide whether aboriginal title or inherent right to self-government exists." We agree. What we're talking about is the principles based….

           K. Lineger: That's what I'm saying. That was just the lead-in to that whole paragraph.

           B. Lekstrom: All right, thank you very much for your presentation.

           I will call on our next presenter this afternoon, Lynne Stonier-Newman. Good afternoon.

           L. Stonier-Newman: Greetings and my thanks for this opportunity. I am a presenter because of a letter to the editor that I wrote to the Kamloops Daily News this July explaining why I perceive all B.C. Crown lands to have a lien on them because of native land rights. When a number of folks encouraged me to share my

[ Page 587 ] 

viewpoints more broadly, I requested time here to read my letter and expand on its historical references.

           Secondly, since I was a social marketing consultant, I had a few questions related to the organization and content of our government's proposed questionnaire, a.k.a. referendum. As it took me eight years to write Policing a Pioneer Province, which spans 92 years of British Columbia's history, I empathize with you. To summarize 13 decades of B.C.'s confusing negotiations and disagreements over our treaties with first nations land into a logical questionnaire is a massive task.

           Now my letter:

 "Dear Editor:

           As a resident of the Skelkwelk'welt, a.k.a. Tod Mountain, a.k.a. Sun Peaks area, I request that British Columbians listen to what 'the protesters' are trying to publicize. The property under dispute has a lien on it that must be removed before being 'rented out' by our government for other use.

[1450] 

           "British Columbia's and Canada's governments and some first nations negotiators have been dilly-dallying since the mid-1870s, when Queen Victoria's British government dictatorially ordered the new Canadian government: 'No! No more money for Indian land claims in Canada. Nothing is to be paid out west of the Rockies.' In response, B.C.'s three land commissioners quit. They reported being weary of lack of credible interpreters, frustrated by inaccurate maps and trying to sort out the complex aboriginal political structures. Delaying suited the six consecutive Premiers our new province had during 1870s, each ineffective at negotiating most issues with the legislators in distant Ottawa. Land settlements stopped, left for future resolution by Canada who was, after all, constitutionally responsible.

           "Sound familiar? Why have we allowed generation after generation of governments to delay, to function as though British Columbia's Crown lands have a clear title? How can corporations be granted exclusive control of Crown lands and lakes through a Crown lease, when the first nations land claims are a basic lien against the same properties? Why do powerful corporations ignore the issue and spend on improvements as though they have clear title to the land underneath?

           "Perhaps British Columbians are all at risk to international corporations. Perhaps our unresolved land claims are a form of protection to our resources. In my opinion, we are drifting back to being colonials, increasingly financially controlled from afar. Does anyone know what percentage of fee simple land titles and Crown leases are currently held by out-of-Canada owners? How much are and to where do those net profits from the use of British Columbia's lands and resources go? Sun Peaks Resort Corp.'s increasing claims to land use in ongoing expansions are as worrisome to me as are the protesters' camouflage and masks.

           "Before any other use of Crown lands can be legally granted, we all need resolution of the first nations land claims. We need decisions and legislation, knowledge of what royalties are payable — to use a writer's jargon. Then we will finally know what land rights we have to sell or lease, if we so choose."

           Some folks asked after reading my letter: "Why don't I know that history?" We don't teach our history well, I'd agree, and add the usual historian's spiel: to know where we're going we have to understand where we've come from. Looking back at the 1870s, we discover our genesis as a province was because the British colonial office needed to lessen their burgeoning colonial expenses. They decided British Columbia would become a province instead of continuing as Britain's expensive colony. As I summarized in Policing a Pioneer Province:

           "The population of British Columbia had declined in the previous decade as the miners and many of the people who served their needs left when the gold rushes petered out.

           "For the Confederation agreement negotiations, every person was counted and apparently, if there was a doubt, counted twice. The native population could only be estimated as its actual numbers remained unknown. Administrators acknowledged that those numbers were declining, but emphasized that B.C. still had one of the largest native populations in British North America. In the rural areas and unorganized communities, the constables were responsible for their region's statistics, which were then tabulated with the counts for New Westminster and Victoria" — the only cities. "The end totals were found that as of December 31, 1870, British Columbia had a population of 5,782 white men, 2,794 white women, 297 coloured men, 165 coloured women, 1,495 Chinese men and 53 Chinese women. The Indian population was estimated at 26,000."

           That 26,000 was quickly revised to the more accurate 70,000-plus Indian population.

[1455] 

           British Columbia's lands and peoples became confederated with Canada in 1871, but since Canada was just four years old, it had few organizing processes. All administrators understood that most of what had been agreed to under the Confederation agreements were future commitments. After all, the lands that would eventually become Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were uninhabited except for Indian tribes, fur traders and American bootleggers. The formation of the North West Mounted Police, who would patrol that territory, was still six years into the future. B.C.'s transportation and communication with Ottawa was still via San Francisco or around the Cape, so British Columbia continued to be governed by a small, powerful, paternalistic group, usually former colonial directors and frequently also large landowners. Many of those planned to expand their B.C. holdings. Massive land transfers and trade-offs often took place around a dinner table in Victoria. The new Indian land rights were usually not considered of much importance.

           Under the Confederation agreements, all administration was theoretically separated into provincial and federal areas of responsibility. Again, in actuality, very few federal officials were transferred to the new province for almost 20 years. In the rural areas of B.C.'s 350,000 square miles provincial constables and government agents continued to enforce the new province's laws. There was usually one constable in a region, who tried to sort out the occasional on-site native-settler disputes. The written government land policies complicated that process, as Indian policy and administration was designated federal. Technically, provincial

[ Page 588 ] 

authorities had no say. In reality, things continued as they had pre-Confederation.

           Despite the formal recognition of native rights to their lands throughout the Confederation process, many B.C. settlers and officials continued to want to keep Indian reserves as small as possible. Sometimes they even managed to reduce borders designated by colonial officials in the 1860s.

           Two factors influenced Indian reaction or lack of reaction. In most of B.C.'s massive area they were unaware, completely unaffected by a change in the status from colony to province. Even though a massive native population had been given to Canada for its protective administration, that had no effect on most of those folks until decades later, when they discovered the federal Indian Affairs ministry had become their dictator.

           Secondly, B.C.'s 10,000 non-native residents in the 1870s had no accurate maps with which to comprehend what B.C.'s geography actually encompassed. Only with air travel did our provincial maps become real. Did administrators in Victoria or New Westminster understand that? No, they expected B.C.'s actual geography to conform to their inaccurate maps.

           Subsequent to the debacle in the mid-1870s, when the three federal, provincial and knowledgable Indian land commissioners bickered among themselves and quit, the expected subsidies from Britain for B.C. treaty land settlements were temporarily cancelled. "Spend no money for treaties west of the Rockies," Queen Victoria's government ordered, probably transferring that expense to Canada on its ledgers. Britain had to downsize expenses.

           Following that, B.C. government perception of B.C. native land claims changed with each turbulent provincial election or new economic opportunity. Negotiations with the feds over Indian land claims continued to be a political football. Remember: although Canadian parliamentarians are the ones actually holding the ball, under the Confederation agreements, you the B.C. legislators are the authorities defining how wide the posts are to be.

[1500] 

           Now on to my questions about the social marketing process that our government is undertaking. How are the questions going to compensate for the fact that over three-quarters of B.C.'s population, and frequently those who live crowded together within spitting distance of each other in less than 10 percent of our province's land mass…? They are unknowledgable about these issues and about the geography of our massive province.

           Will the questions be weighted to identify and then compensate for the level of a respondent's knowledge? Will the questions explain that since 1871 first nations peoples in British Columbia have had property rights — liens, to use real estate terminology — to their fair share of B.C. land ownership? How will our B.C. government's consultative process ensure that all potential voters understand the land use benefits and protection which can be created for all of us by fair and immediate land settlements with our first nations citizens?

           In closing, I want to emphasize the size of our magnificent province. When we start at Osoyoos, on our southern border, and drive 12 hours a day to our northern border at Lower Post, it takes three and a half days at ten miles over the speed limit. When we drive from Sparwood to Vancouver, it takes the better part of two days. British Columbia is big. We have lots to share with each other.

           As well as requesting fair and prompt settlement of all outstanding first nations land claims, I also request that as part of the process, our current policies about who can own B.C. lands and Crown leases be reviewed. I find it worrisome that we seem to be increasingly owned by non-Canadians. For instance, when I learned that the massive Gang Ranch holdings are owned by an Arabian conglomerate, I wondered how come. How can we? Why do our laws allow unconditional sales to foreign owners when we haven't even completed B.C.'s long-overdue land treaties? Our elders, both non-native and native, advise us to value our lands, to respect and preserve them for our future generations. Are we?

           When I worked to help get this government elected, I hadn't realized all the potential benefits. Isn't it provident that we have kindred provincial and federal political powerhouses to shape settlements with astute native negotiators? This is the time to settle the first nations land liens without further delays, despite the demands of an increasingly chaotic world. What an achievement, a legacy, for both governments — to complete and ratify agreements after 13 decades of negotiations. Thank you for listening.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much for your presentation, Lynne. I will look to members of the committee if there are any questions.

           G. Trumper: It's not a question so much as a statement. You made the comment on how much people understand the process. I think you were probably talking about how much knowledge people have on the issue.

           L. Stonier-Newman: I think you have a number of issues that haven't even been put on the table. When I talk about most of our population being in a very small percentage of our land base…. The word "perception" was used earlier. The perception of questions relates to what you understand. If somebody is colour-blind, they're going to see colour very differently than somebody that isn't.

           I don't envy you the process at all, because it doesn't make a lot of sense. Common sense should be the factor of good government. To do that, you have to talk in simple language that people can understand.

           We're very multicultural. A large percentage of our new Canadians have not yet got a grasp of English. Think of the Canadian census and how many languages they take great pleasure in distributing the questionnaires in. Are we going to get into the same mess? 

[ Page 589 ] 

           B. Lekstrom: Val, we have time for one brief question.

[1505] 

           V. Anderson: I want to thank you. It's not a question, but thank you for highlighting for us the pitfalls. Unless we're aware of the obstacles, we can't attempt to overcome them. Thank you.

           B. Lekstrom: Lynne, once again, thank you very much for your presentation.

           We will move on to our next presenter. I will call on Mavis Gillie. Good afternoon and welcome.

           M. Gillie: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, and ladies and gentlemen who have come this afternoon.

           First, I want to acknowledge that we are on the traditional land of the Songhees and the Esquimalt first nations.

           Second, I'd like to dedicate this very short presentation to the memory of Linda Manz — someone you won't know. She was a young woman who spent much of her life furthering the language, culture and aspirations of the Kwakwala-speaking peoples of the northern part of Vancouver Island. She died tragically of cancer last Sunday. While I was preparing this, I thought it would be appropriate that even this small presentation be done in her honour.

           I'm aware that the purpose of your consultation is to gather advice for the form and content of questions for a referendum on the principles that will guide the provincial government's approach to treaty negotiations with first nations. After a great deal of thought I came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to give advice on such a proposal, with all the complications that will be the fallout of such an exercise — an exercise which in my opinion serves to subvert the very democracy it purports to uphold.

           I've spent 30 years working on issues of aboriginal rights and so on. It's my opinion that the government of B.C. is either unaware of the mistake it is making, or it's obliged to carry through on a promise made before the election by the Premier, who has had very bad advice from his chief of staff, who has a long history of opposition to aboriginal rights and treaties. Many, many B.C. citizens are greatly concerned that the referendum will allow a majority of non-natives to influence the treaty rights of a minority, the first peoples.

           Let me tell you about some experiences I had during the last provincial election. The Premier had announced before the election that he intended to hold a referendum on treaties in the early part of his regime. In order to find out what some of the Liberal candidates knew about first peoples, I undertook to interview Liberal candidates in the Victoria area. I was able to meet all of them except one whose executive assistant I spoke with and one who didn't have time to meet. I asked these questions.

           First: "If the Liberals are elected and you will be part of the decision-making process regarding a referendum, what is your background on native issues?" None had any, except a former police officer who insisted: "Lots of my friends are Indians." That didn't answer the question.

           Then I asked: "Knowing that this is going to be on the agenda if the Liberals are elected, have you taken time to visit first nations in the Victoria area to talk with them and get their input?" None had done so.

           "Have you ever attended open treaty tables during the past several years?" None had done so.

           "Have you ever taken a course in native studies at Camosun College or the University of Victoria or read extensively about the history, culture and aspirations of first peoples?" Surely, that's something that someone hoping to be elected to a government should have done. None had done that.

           "Are you aware that the Liberal Party's court case against the Nisga'a treaty is against the government of B.C. and the Attorney General of B.C., so if you're elected, you'll be suing your own government?" One, who didn't answer yes or no, just sighed and said: "We'll have to do something about that." The others were unaware.

[1510] 

           I suggest to you, members of this committee, that if you were questioned similarly at that time, your responses would be much the same.

           What do we have here? We have a Premier driven by bad advice from his chief of staff. We have the resource-driven corporate agenda. They want to get those land claims settled so that they can get on with their business, and they want certainty. We have a standing committee who, with all due respect, probably have pretty limited knowledge of what they're supposed to deal with. Then they take their recommendations to government members, who want to achieve a political end and a referendum offered to a population that, by and large, is equally uninformed.

           Bishop William Wantland is a member of the Seminole nation. That's the tribe from Florida. He put it this way at a conference I attended: "So often, the non-Indian is ignorant of the differences in culture and in values but, worse than that, is ignorant of his ignorance. That is really the root of the problem." Now, having delivered that, I'd like to make some suggestions.

           First, I earnestly urge you to think deeply, as other people appearing here this afternoon have done, about what you're undertaking. I hope you'll have the courage to discuss this with your caucus and advise them to back off until you've had more time.

           I realize that others have made the same suggestion, and you're probably thinking: "Tough luck." In our society we are still so entrenched in the colonial process, and once one is in the Legislature, there's the colonial process that we go through. Standing committees have to perform their duties and so on, so it's very unlikely that that will happen. I still think I want to urge you to do it.

           I earnestly urge you further to meet with first nations, not at a treaty table but by going out and having coffee with them some morning, to get their wisdom

[ Page 590 ] 

and their assistance in devising a just and honourable way of moving forward. I earnestly urge you to show the citizens of B.C. that you have the courage to change your mind and that more preparation needs to be done.

           In doing so, there will be three really good results. One is, and this is really important to most taxpayers, that it will save the taxpayers the estimated $30 million to $60 million required to hold a freestanding referendum. The second is that it will help convince the general public — many of whom are very skeptical about Liberal policies, especially as they come down the pike one a day these days — that the Premier and members are big enough to say: "We have to find a better way." The third very important result would be that it would help build bridges with first peoples rather than create even deeper distrust and division. I work a lot with first nations, and I know a fair bit about that distrust and division.

           One of my heartfelt recommendations, which I made to the last standing committee on aboriginal affairs, is: I recommend that your ministry and government undertake a public education program that will assist the citizens of B.C. to understand our common history and to allow first peoples to be free from yet another assault, as the referendum will be.

           That could be like exchanges, you know. There's a group of students from the university in the law faculty who go out to the big house on the Tsartlip reserve with the dean and with profs, and they stay there overnight. They come back and find it has been a life-changing experience. We could have exchanges between non-native young people and native people. We could do that, surely, through the school system.

           We could have television programs, informative ones, instead of the junk that we see on TV these days. Let's use TV to do something constructive instead: to teach the adults. We don't have to listen to all these American networks and all the garbage that is sent out to us day by day. We need to really get down to earth. There are a lot of groups, like some I belong to, that would be only too willing to help in such a situation.

[1515] 

           The last is that I wonder if you'd heard about the Australian program that they have. The last time I made a presentation to the standing committee with a group that I belong to, I met a young woman in the washroom. She was from Australia, and I said: "Boy, you're a long way from home." She said: "Yeah, well, we've got the aboriginals of Australia, and I wouldn't miss this. We have an excellent program that the government is undertaking." She showed me the docket, and it was just full of good stuff. It had maps. It had stuff for students. It had stuff for seniors. It had bumper stickers. It had really creative, good stuff coming out that wasn't drab pages and pages of various stages of a treaty process. It was an effort to educate the people. The government was 100 percent behind it.

           I wrote to Canberra. I got one. I loaned it out. Again, right now it's out on loan. They call it Vision of Reconciliation, and it's made up of aboriginals, two Torres Strait Islanders and an equal number of Australian people. Their principles are understanding the importance of land and sea in aboriginal societies, improving relationships between aboriginals and other Australians, valuing the cultures and heritage of Australia's first people, and including indigenous people in Australia's official history.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much, Mavis. I note that we do have some members wishing to ask questions.

           R. Visser: Thanks, Mavis. I have to say that your presentation was probably one of the most frustrating ones I have heard to date in all of our travels, mostly because there is life past the Malahat. Perhaps you should look past the Malahat someday.

           M. Gillie: Yes, I belong to a group that is….

           R. Visser: I am very, very frustrated that you would assume, on my behalf, that I could not answer any of those questions that you posed to other MLAs.

           M. Gillie: All right.

           R. Visser: I can assure you that — I have to calm down a little bit — it is exceedingly difficult to live in rural parts of this province and have to listen to those types of comments. They are untoward, and they leave an impression that is wrong and difficult to stomach.

           I can assure you — and I don't want to speak on behalf of anyone else on this committee, but I know them all quite well now, and I have known some of them for a long time — that we pay a great deal of attention to those types of questions that you asked earlier and that we have all done, in our own way and in our own time, some of the things that you have asked in those. I suspect it would be nice if before reading things like that into a record, you perhaps would have taken the time to ask us individually about where we stood on those things.

           M. Gillie: There wasn't time.

           R. Visser: That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

           M. Gillie: May I respond, though, to that question? I belong to a group that's called Aboriginal Neighbours, and we have representatives on the whole of Vancouver Island. I've also worked with a group that has worked on this issue in British Columbia. I've been on a national church committee on aboriginal issues. I've helped present papers on offshore oil and gas exploration, on mining, and so on. Through those experiences, I have been to the Queen Charlottes; I've been in northern B.C.

           B. Lekstrom: Rather than get into a debate, Mavis, I do have another question. 

[ Page 591 ] 

           M. Gillie: No, I'm not in a debate, but I just feel I have the right to answer his questions, because he was questioning my ability.

           B. Lekstrom: For the sake of time and certainly getting back to the point — and I don't want to take anything away from your presentation — I do have another member of the committee that would like to ask a question. I believe that a member of the committee has stated his opinion, reflecting what you have stated, and I think that's fair. If we could move on, I think it would be far more productive.

           M. Gillie: Okay, that's fine.

           B. Lekstrom: All right.

           G. Trumper: Thank you. I think what we've been hearing as we go around the province is that there's a huge difference in views between the urban and the rural areas. I think what we've heard today is what a lot of us thought we would probably hear from the urban areas. If you go out into the rural areas, you get a very different perspective.

           I also would like to say that for the last eight years I've been involved in the local government and been the representative on treaty negotiations.

           M. Gillie: I realize that.

           G. Trumper: I've spent an incredible amount of time on it, and I think that most of the people on this committee do have some background in aboriginal affairs; otherwise, I don't think we would have been appointed to this committee. We do have some knowledge to be able to deal with a very difficult issue.

[1520] 

           B. Lekstrom: Mavis, again, I would like to thank you for your presentation this afternoon to the committee.

           M. Gillie: Thank you for the opportunity.

           B. Lekstrom: Our next presenter this afternoon is Janet Dunnett.

           J. Dunnett: Hi. I'm sorry, I haven't done a lot of presenting, and I don't have anything nearly as good as some of the things I've heard said so far. I'll just do my best. I've been thinking about this for a long time and actually have read everything that has happened so far in your quite challenging move around the province. I congratulate you.

           I'm a sort of mid-fifties woman, from Ottawa actually, here doing an MPA focused on indigenous governance at the University of Victoria. It doesn't make me an expert. I've been thinking about these issues for two or three years, and I'm at the stage now where I know enough to know that I don't know anything. With that, I move on.

           I've been observing the issue and the process from a number of perspectives. From one of the perspectives — which has had me in community groups talking about land rights all last year in Ontario — boy, there really is an education gap that needs to be filled. What I believe, though, is that this is Canada's most important struggle that's going on right now. Other people have said that in Hansard, and I'm saying that too.

           I also believe that as Canadians we're not immune from having a festering problem go on so long that somehow it sparks into something violent. In so many other places of the world, people just like us would have said it could never happen. It's an important thing for our own self-interest to find some way of pulling out of this problem and trying to get on a better road. I say a better road because it's not a quick fix; it's just a new direction going somewhere. I think there is better direction that we could be on.

           My life has been in the foreign-aid program dealing with poverty in the Third World. What we're understanding about poverty is that it has to do with vulnerability and isolation. "I have no connections. No one listens to me. I'm okay today, but I won't be okay tomorrow. I'm scared." People who live in that depth of poverty for a very long time eventually do lash out. I don't need to go on to say what fears the month of September has aroused in us about that.

           What I suggest to you is: don't have a referendum, but don't do nothing. It's really important to find some different way that the B.C. government, with your huge mandate and so on, can move forward from this bad patch to something more positive. I'd suggest three things. Take a step back and use a lot of the money that you would alternatively be spending on a referendum to create a whole lot of forums that would get people out to start to talk about the issue and to learn.

           Use some of that money to hire facilitators and train them and expect performance from them, who would be prepared to run group discussions and who would get into schools, community centres, churches, living rooms. Keith Spicer did that ten years ago to very great effect and got everybody talking about Canada for about six months.

           A third thing would be that there are a lot of skills in Canada — I mean, I speak to you as a transplanted fed — in how to go about discussing very tough things. It's called the process of deliberative dialogue. Go to the website of the National Round Table on the Environment and begin to understand how things far more difficult than this one seems to be can be discussed by intelligent people who might not have a lot of information but who have a lot of will.

[1525] 

           I'd also suggest that if you do have to have a referendum, do it in a brand-new way. Don't go into little booths and vote with little black pens and count it up on a statistical whatever. There are a whole lot of better ways to do that now. Ask citizens of B.C. to earn their right to speak to you in a referendum. Ask every citizen to have to listen, to learn, to read a pamphlet or to walk through and see some pictures on their way to the booth — do something so that you don't come in off the

[ Page 592 ] 

street with the latest thing that made you mad and vote with that. We expect people to get a licence before they drive. They've of course got a right to drive, but you know that it's really important that they drive well, and you ask them to get a licence. I think it's a legitimate thing to ask people who come to this referendum to have done some thinking first.

           Another idea was suggested earlier. I don't know what place you were in, but when the fellow started to talk about Michael Ignatieff, a very great Canadian with an international reputation, it made me think it wouldn't be the first time in the world if you got together a wise group of people, who B.C. people could trust were wise, and ask them to think about these issues and think of solutions they could convey. That's how the United States got formed, with citizens committees; with Ben Franklin and company going out and spending a lot of time talking about the issues, delegated to do that by the other citizens who didn't have time or who felt scared or who felt confused, or all the different reasons that people aren't coming forward and talking to you in very great numbers.

           Here are my questions. They're very counterintuitive, and they don't even mention the word…. Well, they do mention the word "native."

           Question 1 would be: citizen of B.C., what is your highest hope for an outcome to the treaty process? Part B of that is: how do you think the B.C. government could help us get there?

           Question 2 would be: what's your worst fear from the treaty process, and how do you think the B.C. government might help to avoid this worst fear happening?

           I told you I'm an MPA student, so I'm learning a lot of things about what's new out there in the world of technology. There are many, many technologies that would let you do very good analysis of qualitative questions. It no longer has to be yes or no, little black pens. There are new ways of going.

           Some final comments from having studied Hansard night after night. You've had to listen to it day by day, but I've been doing it on the Internet. I have no sense that you've heard from young people, and yet this is the problem that the young are going to inherit. By the time we get the first treaty signed, anyone who's 12 today will probably be a voter. It's a problem that young people are going to have to live with. Canada's actually got quite a reputation for being able to deal with young people and bring them onto the international and national stage. I think it really is worth thinking about how to have a youth forum that would hear from the young.

           I really know it's hard, but get to ordinary-Joe first nations people ? not the chiefs, not the band councillors, not the people who have a car and can get to your hotel, wherever you've had to be…. It's been great. You've been all over the province, but I don't think it's been easy to hear — just like me — from our many first nations people that have views. I suggest particularly that you try and meet with the elders. They're not going to do that right away, I'm sure. They're going to have to trust that this doesn't have some hitch to it, but if you could get to elders, they're very wise people who have very long-term, seventh-generation views of what should happen now.

           Most of the people that have come to this committee, by my analysis of Hansard, have said: "Don't have a referendum." I think you have to listen to that. Reading Hansard, more than any other recommendation that you've had has been the recommendation about public education. I'd change that word, and I would say that what you have to think about is public engagement. You're going to get caught if you go with public education. It's going to be called propaganda, and nobody's going to listen. You can twist it and say: "We're all grown up and smart B.C. citizens here. Let's engage on this issue." That's all I have to say.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much, Janet, for bringing your views to the committee this afternoon. I do have members of our committee that would like to ask questions. I will begin with Gillian.

[1530] 

           G. Trumper: Thank you very much for a very thoughtful presentation. You've sort of taken a different slant, and I think it's a lot of food for thought. Just for your information, it's quite true that we haven't had very many young people, but we have had some. One yesterday, an aboriginal young person, actually made the point that we should be gearing any questions on a referendum to the young people. That was a comment of his.

           The other issue that you talked about was engagement rather than education. I've asked this question at other sessions we've had. I received a letter today from the Treaty Commission because I'd asked them the question. They sent me a letter of all the information on the stuff they're doing with, apparently, forums and going into the schools, etc. But obviously that hasn't engaged people. You make a very valid point that what is being done hasn't been getting people's attention. They've been doing that for eight or nine years.

           J. Dunnett: My personal experience going into communities and talking about land issues in Ontario is that there's a lot of ventilating that has to happen first. You have to be ready for torture for the first couple of hours as people bring out all the garbage. But if you can be in hour 3, things start to get smoother. I think that's just human nature. We have to be prepared to have long enough discussions to get past the ventilating.

           B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much, Janet. Have a good afternoon.

           I will call our next presenter this afternoon: Mr. Ron Martin.

              [M. Hunter in the chair.]

           R. Martin: Hi. Thank you for having me here. My name is Ron Martin. I'm from the Tla-o-qui-aht nation in Tofino. I'm not here representing Tla-o-qui-aht or

[ Page 593 ] 

Nuu-chah-nulth or any political group or organization. I'm just here to give you my views of this issue. My tribe and the tribal council that represents me have chosen to boycott this exercise that you're doing. That's their political stance. I, on the other hand, see that you're still going ahead with what you're doing, and I thought it was important that I get up here and voice my opinion about it.

           There's really a lot to say, and I get kind of nervous being here. I get concerned that it's an exercise in futility, that it really isn't going to make any difference what I say. But at the same time, I think it's irresponsible of me, to myself, to not say anything, given this chance to come here and say something.

[1535] 

           My family have been born and raised and have died in Tofino for hundreds, thousands, of years. My father lived on the same property…. We've had the same property for I don't know how many generations. On my grandfather's side I know of eight generations of my great-great-grandfathers. I know their names and where they come from. On my grandmother's side I know at least eight of them: her parents, her grandparents, her great-grandparents. We've been here a long time.

           I've made a few notes here. I'll go through them and make additional notes as I carry on through. Our history with white people — white people and Indians — has been a history of racism. It's still with us today, what we experience as first nations. I know that. Some will deny it. Some will not want to look at it because it's such a deep-seated issue that we don't want to go there. That's our dark history as a province, as Indians and whites.

           We had the Indian Act imposed on us. We had residential schools imposed on us. We've had prohibition imposed on us. We were denied the vote in this country until 1960. The debate before that vote was granted to us was about whether or not we were human. My grandfather was in his seventies at that time, and my father was 39 or 40 years old. This country had a debate about him, about my grandparents, as to whether or not they were real human beings. In our language our word for "people" is…. [The presenter spoke a language other than English.] It means: "You're a real live human being." That's the way we look at people. You're a real live human being. You're sitting there. You have feelings. You can hear me. You're in this world, not in a spirit world or somewhere else. You're real. You're not dead. You're a real live human being.

           Both of my parents are products of the Indian residential school. My mother wanted to be a nurse. She got up to grade 8, and they told her: "You have to quit being an Indian if you want to become a nurse." My father was forced to quit speaking our language. The school had one of his cousins wash his mouth out with soap because he was speaking our language.

[1540] 

           Our kids — my daughter, my nieces and nephews and the next generations — are growing up knowing that stuff, the dark history that we have in this province. Those kids are going to be angry about that. They're going to be very pissed off at the racism, whether it's blatant or subtle. They're not going to like it.

           There are a lot of our people going back to school. It's been one of the biggest trends in our communities where our people have gone on to colleges and universities. One of the things that upsets our people a lot is the arbitrary nature of provincial and federal politics.

           The referendum is a bullying tactic. I can tell you that in my family and in the communities where I've worked, our people aren't going to accept it. I think that if the referendum is not handled properly, if it's not handled in a sensitive way, the potential for conflict is far greater and the potential for uncertainty is far greater.

           I've worked in all different areas of this province. I've worked in the Okanagan, up north, in the Fraser Valley and the Fraser Canyon. I've worked all over Vancouver Island. I know people in all those different areas.

           My father and my brothers stood there when the loggers came on to Meares Island. My father was there. He was building a canoe. I don't know if you guys were around at the time. My father was there.

           I really admire my brother. We're talking about building a big house for our family over on Meares Island. I said: "Oh, wow, that's great. Did you get permission to get the logs?" He said: "No. Shit, no. We've got lots of logs. They're ours." I was really amazed at him. I'm glad that he does that. He has the guts and the courage and the strength to get out there and exercise our aboriginal rights.

[1545] 

           Quite often we're told by governments that we don't know who we're dealing with, because you're always changing. Since I've been out of college or university, since 1984, how many Premiers have you had — six, seven, eight, nine, ten? The same with the federal government. You've had Trudeau. You had Clark. You had — the lady from Vancouver; I can't remember her name — Kim Campbell. Who else have you had? There's a whole bunch of them. To us, the players on your side are always changing. Of course they change on our side too, but not as frequently.

              [J. Les in the chair.]

           I've followed this issue quite closely since we started talking about the treaty process. There was a tripartite agreement signed in North Vancouver by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the Premier — I can't remember who the Premier was at the time — and the First Nations Summit. They signed an accord there that said: "We're going to work on treaties together." Now when I look at what's going on today, this government is saying: "The heck with that. We're going to invite another party here. We're going to do our own thing."

           For me and for my family, it's hard to trust you. It's hard to know when you're going to keep your word. We don't know what motivates you, what your beliefs are. We don't know each other as first nations and as

[ Page 594 ] 

the white community out here. We really don't. We see things and we hear things. We see people taking part in activities, but yet we really don't know what's going on there. In our eyes there's something else going on. We really need to figure that out. What is going on here?

           What I've seen in the last 20 or 30 years since I studied government is that governments are consistently inconsistent. You change from one government to the next. The last government's policies get thrown out. Your policies will get thrown out by the next government. It'll just go on down the line. When does it ever quit?

           I don't know if I'm running overtime here.

           J. Les (Chair): You're right on time now, Ron. If I could get you to wrap up, and then perhaps a question or two.

[1550] 

           R. Martin: Okay, thank you.

           I'm not in favour of referendums. I don't think it's showing leadership. I think it's unfair to put such a complex issue before the public. A majority of the people don't know anything about us. A majority of the people don't care about first nations people. If there is going to be a question put to the public — and it looks like there is with this exercise being carried out — I would say the question that should be asked to the public is: should B.C. surrender enough land to first nations people to allow them the ability to have economic and cultural stability?

           However, I don't think any question should be put to anyone. What needs to happen is for this government and for first nations to commit to a process of reconciliation. The longer we delay it, the longer this issue will carry on because it's not going to be forgotten and it's not going to go away. Thank you for listening to me.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Ron. Let me apologize first of all for not hearing the first part of your presentation.

           Are there questions from members of the committee at this point?

           I see none, so again, thank you for coming today and sharing your points of view with us. We appreciate it.

           The next presenter is Troy Sebastian, the Native Student Union, University of Victoria.

           T. Sebastian: Thank you to the committee. I can't imagine how stressful and how much endurance you need to go around the province and solicit the opinions of as many people as you can in the amount of time. I appreciate you giving the time to speak to today.

           First off, I'd like to thank the Lekwammen people whose land this is for allowing me live on these lands, to study on these lands and to begin my family on these lands.

           I should introduce myself. My name's Troy Sebastian. I'm Ktunaxa. That's from St. Mary's reserve in Cranbrook. I grew up in the Okanagan, but I'm going to school here. I think I have a fairly good understanding of the rural hinterland, understanding of big-city Vancouver and of here in Victoria.

           I am the fire keeper of the Native Student Union. That essentially means that I am the spokesperson. The NSU is an organization composed of first nations, Métis and Inuit students at the University of Victoria. It's been around for about 30 years. We provide a space for aboriginal students on campus who don't have any other space to feel comfortable and just be. We provide cultural activities, coordination and this part of our existence, which is political advocacy.

           The statements I'm going to make today about the proposed referendum are not simply my own opinions. They are essentially a reflection of discussions we've had over the last month or so, knowing that this was going to be the core issue we'd be facing this year with the new government coming into place.

           First off, we really question the necessity for this referendum. We see in terms of a democratic process that the May 2001 election — which you're all obviously veterans of and successful candidates — was a fairly clear indication of the will of British Columbia one way or the other. To place this question or this issue to the people of British Columbia would be, in a way, to sidestep that mandate and to rely on the public's opinion, the general non-aboriginal opinion, of aboriginal issues. That's quite a concern to us. Further, we also see that referenda in general have not necessarily been a binding process. From what I understand, the process of a referendum is that whatever the result is, the government can go either way. It doesn't bind the government, so on those grounds we question it.

[1555] 

           Secondly, and the comments made earlier by the previous speaker sort of alluded to it, are we really concerned about the potential for violence resulting from the referendum? You don't have to go far back in British Columbia history; it probably happens to a small degree every day. In 1995 we had something in British Columbia called the Gustafsen Lake standoff, which was, to that point, the largest expenditure in RCMP history. The result from that level of armed military response to aboriginal aspirations of sovereignty put a lot of people on guard about what the government was going to do. People, I think, have been like that for a while. Anyhow, obviously the Burnt Church issue out in New Brunswick is something where an issue of aboriginal rights not handled correctly by our government can definitely lead to violence. We don't want to see violence whatsoever, and we think that this proposal would open up an opportunity for that.

           Thirdly, we believe that most people in British Columbia have now come to believe that the treaty process is flawed. Certainly, there have been no treaties since the treaty process was started. Of chief concern to us is first nations debt, which is a necessity in order to engage in the treaty process. For our bands, for our peoples, to be put in debt to sit at a table similar to this and talk about what our rights are is difficult. Obviously, everyone went into that with the understanding

[ Page 595 ] 

and full knowledge that that would be the case. But that is something that we're really concerned with.

           Also, there's the question of the non-treaty voice. A large proportion of the aboriginal population in British Columbia, as you are aware, is not engaged in the treaty process. If you get a referendum approved saying that these are the principles by which we are going to negotiate treaties, just based on what we're dealing with right now, you are ignoring a large part of the population that will never negotiate a treaty. It would seem to me that we need to look at alternative methods to resolve these issues, which I think we're all committed to.

           As well, we disagree with the principles of certainty and finality, and these seem to be the core issues at play in the treaty process. We believe that they limit and extinguish aboriginal rights. We will engage in no process ever proposed where, from our position, our rights would be extinguished. For us, they come from our ancestors, and they're a responsibility to our children. It's something that we're not going to sign away in a treaty.

           We also disagree with how the certainty and finality was tied into the new-era platform with the idea of equality. We don't believe that equality means the asymmetrical surrender of rights. If we're going to negotiate a binding agreement where it is written on paper that we should have our rights extinguished and the rest of the people of British Columbia are not really surrendering anything that's core to their being…. For us, the usage of the land is something that is not going to just be negotiated away. I think that's what the difficulty is with a large proportion of first nations people who are not engaged in the treaty process.

           We do not agree or believe that treaty-making is necessarily the only way to resolve the issue. Every first nation is different. From the Ktunaxa, back where I'm from, to the Okanagan, wherever you go, there are differences. There are different ways that people want to address the issue. What was mentioned earlier, and what has been seen in South Africa, not just in British Columbia, is something that has been tossed around: a nation-wide truth and reconciliation process. This is not something that has to be binding in terms of the agreement that comes out, but I think it's clear from the level of interest that both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people have that there is a high degree of emotion in it. We think that subjecting that emotion to this referendum process may lead to some problems. One thing that could happen is to have a process where people could actually air their feelings and come together in the community. I really agree with the previous speaker who said that we don't really know each other yet. I think that's really the case between the first nations and the non–first nations communities.

           I've just got to skip ahead. I've got a few other things here, but I don't know what my time schedule is like. I'm a student, so I'm used to talking ad nauseam. As politicians, maybe you understand that as well.

[1600] 

           I'll just hit one last thing before I get into our alternative solutions. We believe that this process essentially enables the government — I'll say this with respect — to sidestep the responsibility. The idea of a referendum is based on populist notions of equality, that if you give a voice to British Columbia, the cream will rise to the top and the best result will come out. This idea of populism presumes a sameness and excludes diversity, because there can be many voices in a vote. To simply have it down to a box between yes and no may not fully appreciate that. Certainly, if the government was truly a populist government in nature, it would subject all of its policy to referenda. We don't see why our issue should be the only one subjected to that.

           A suggestion might be to start with the first order of business that the government engaged in, which was to give deputy ministers such large increases this year. I'm sure, if the people of British Columbia had a voice in that, they might not be collecting such a large pay at the end of the day.

           We propose that if you're going to hold a referendum on treaty principles, you need to ask a series of questions before that. Some people have already brought up this idea that there needs to be some sort of public consultation about what people actually understand. These questions are sort of based on the W5 — who, what, when, where and why.

           First of all, the people of British Columbia should ask themselves: who are the first nations people whose territory they live on? There are people all over British Columbia.

           What does certainty and finality mean? Do the people of British Columbia really understand these things? When did Europeans first arrive here, and who was there to greet them when they first showed up? These are questions that reinforce that there are indigenous people here, aboriginal people who were here prior to Europeans.

           Also, people need to ask themselves: why are the first nations communities facing the highest rates of infant mortality, youth suicide, substance abuse and diabetes and the lowest rates of life expectancy, employment and education? These are the real questions that need to be asked of British Columbia, not about what the principles of a treaty should be, which most people won't actually spend the time to read.

           Just to conclude, we think there should be a new round of negotiations with the federal government and each first nation. The debt of first nations engaged in the treaty negotiations needs to be looked at, if not eliminated. To some degree, interim land use agreements need to be negotiated. There have been some so far. It does seem like that is one way to at least get part of the economic questions addressed, which is obviously a concern to every British Columbian, whether or not they have a job.

           Secondly, in terms of education, as a student organization we think there needs to be a real renewal of education in British Columbia from the primary, secondary and post-secondary educational levels to address the wide-scale and widespread institutional prejudices in British Columbia. I don't expect people of this committee to fully understand what we're talking

[ Page 596 ] 

about, but I can tell you that as a student growing up in British Columbia, looking like I do, I'm not the archetypal aboriginal person. I've be able to see an insight into both areas of these communities. We really need to look at those things — basically, how the education system is administrated in this province and how that affects prejudice on both sides.

           That's essentially the end of my presentation. I really respect the fact that you're here to listen. I know full well that this is a very difficult subject. Just on a personal note, I'd like to add that I'm 25 years old. I'm about to graduate from UVic, and I'm pretty happy about that.

           Fifty percent of the aboriginal population in Canada is younger than 25, approximately. Without a doubt that area of the population should be, if not foremost in mind, chief in mind when you consider resolving these issues. If my generation is rejecting these notions of certainty and finality, you can be sure that in the next 20 years, there's going to be a more hard line, sovereign, fundamentalist approach to this. Coming to these committees will no longer be even considered. I mean, the boycotts here right now….

           I'm here to present for an organization. We haven't taken a stand on whether or not we'll actually be engaged in the referendum, but the bottom line is that there's a large group of aboriginal people coming up — the young ones. To continue this history of not resolving these issues, of not listening to the voices of first nations people in British Columbia, is unacceptable.

[1605] 

           The fact that really large organizations like the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs have outright boycotted this should lead the government to consider that perhaps first nations people do not see this as a viable option, and they should maybe reconsider the process altogether. That's the end of my comments, and once again, I'd like to thank you for your time.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Troy. Gillian has a question.

           G. Trumper: Thank you, Troy, for your presentation. You made a comment somewhere that there will be some people who'll be missing from it. Were you referring to off-reserve aboriginals, or were you referring just to those bands, those nations, that are not in the treaty process?

           T. Sebastian: I was mainly referring to the different bands and first nations groups who are not involved in the treaty process. Certainly, the idea of off-reserve people within the treaty process is something that should be considered as well. I think what should be looked at in terms of off-reserve people is why they're leaving the reserve in the first place.

           G. Trumper: We haven't had many, but we've certainly had some individuals come forward from the aboriginal community who have real individual concerns about their particular lives and how they don't feel they're being represented. I was sort of just trying to fill out who you were referring to, whether it was individual people or whether it was those who are just off reserve and bands not involved.

           T. Sebastian: If you take a map of British Columbia and look at the first nations people who are there, and you look at the first nations people who are in the treaty process and those who aren't, there's a fairly large part of the province that's not included.

           G. Trumper: Thank you.

           D. MacKay: Troy, thank you very much. It has been said earlier today that we're now sitting on 13 decades of a festering sore. This Liberal government has committed to lancing it, I guess, and getting rid of this sore that's been around for 13 decades. That's the reason we're here today. You may or may not agree with some of the things that we're proposing, but we do want to see an end to this.

           Before I forget, I just want to say congratulations on your almost-finished schooling. That brings me to the point that we've heard several times in the past. One of the things we need to do is educate the people. You spoke about the terrible graduation rate of native children from schools. That begs a question from you, if you can answer it for me. In my previous years I was with the RCMP, and I travelled the province. I worked in a number of native communities, and I saw the poverty and the alcoholism that were so prevalent in homes. I have to ask you, because you mentioned that you've seen it from a different perspective. You've seen it from both sides. What was the driving force that got you into education and got you to where you are today? What did you see that made you want to get out of that cycle that I've seen so much of and I'm sure you have? What got you out of that cycle and brought you into education? How do we educate more native children?

           T. Sebastian: This is a really personal question, but I'll answer it to the best of my ability. First of all, I've known all my life that education is something that I'm entitled to, and I've always grown up to believe that everyone everywhere in the world is entitled to as much education as they need, whether that's primary, secondary or post-secondary.

           One of the main reasons why those social problems weren't as prevalent for me was essentially because of my mother. My father was a full-blood Kootenay Indian — Tanaka, a big man — and he was an alcoholic. My mother was, I suppose, a flower child of the late sixties and early seventies, and she left the reserve because she didn't want me to grow up with an alcoholic. That's essentially one of the main reasons why I lived perhaps a different life than anyone else. I don't think you can legislate that or mandate that, but I think it's important to note the progress in generations that we've gone through and that we are going to go through. I think it's really critical to look at seven generations before.

[ Page 597 ] 

[1610] 

           My father's experience with education was going to a residential school. My brothers' experience with education was going to residential school. There was about a 22-year difference between my father's age and my mother's age, so I had a lot of older brothers. I think just the focus that we've gone through…. Obviously, we don't want to have residential schools anymore, but I think recognizing that investing in post-secondary education — and there are other committees hearing this exact argument — is critical to not only providing an economic, educated populace but also enriching the people of British Columbia. In terms of the education system in British Columbia, I was taught in high school that the first nations people, the Indians, were those people who were here when we got here. There were no pictures from the twentieth century, hardly any at all that would lead anyone in the class to believe that those people may still be around today or that there may be someone in their room who is a direct descendant from those people. These are things that you have jurisdiction over that can make a difference. I think education reform is key to that.

           J. Les (Chair): Okay, I have one last question from Val.

           V. Anderson: I come from a small town in the Prairies, and one of the things that we found there is that most young people had to leave home in order to get the education or to get jobs or to get ahead. Even if we get economic development going in the reserve areas and in the settlement communities, I would assume from my own experience that a lot of people are going to have to…. I know that in the city we have a lot of people at the moment who are off reserve. The treaty process doesn't seem to be meeting the needs of the people who are off reserve — a lot of young people, in that case. Do you have any comments about that?

           T. Sebastian: I agree with what you're saying in terms of the necessity to leave the reserve. I didn't grow up on my reserve, per se. I grew up off and on reserve — that reserve and another reserve. Obviously, economic viability will only go so far.

           What you need to really recognize is, in terms of the urban aboriginal people…. Just look at yesterday's Monday Magazine for the week. It cited that aboriginal homelessness in Victoria is a massive problem. There's no excuse for that. In terms of my comments — and maybe I'm coming at it from an idealistic perspective; I'm young, and I think that's a good thing — I don't see why that has to be. There are programs out there, but they're insufficient.

           One of the things that I think this government certainly did make a mistake in was ending the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and just putting it with what was left with women's and community programs and first nations. From the people I went and talked to, that's not a sign of hope that the government's actually going to be addressing the issues. If anything, it's just figuring out what was left at the end of the day and just lumping it together and saying: "Here, George. Good luck." I don't really think that was necessarily a step in the right direction. I think that there are a lot of people out there who could coordinate programs if there was funding made available, and that would be a first step for me, I'd say. Thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Troy, for sharing your thoughts with us. We appreciate your coming.

           The next presenter is Murray Browne.

           M. Browne: Thanks. I see I have the coveted speaking slot in the late afternoon lull. I appreciate the commitment of the members of the committee.           

           J. Les (Chair): There will be lots more lull before this day is out.

           M. Browne: I am a lawyer who works for first nations. I also happen to be a municipal planner who works for local government. You can think of me either as a walking conflict of interest or as somebody who has a bit of experience in the treaty process.

           Most of my work is with first nations in the treaty process, and a lot of that work is on a volunteer basis. The reason for that is that I just can't really bring myself to fully bill first nations for treaty work, because they're sitting there accumulating debt with nothing to show for it.

           Although I am legal council for Sliammon and Snuneymuxw and I provide legal advice to the 38 nations in the First Nations Treaty Negotiation Alliance, I am not representing any of those nations here. I'm just here on my own behalf.

[1615] 

           I don't propose to spend much time on the legitimacy of the referendum process. I know that your mandate doesn't allow you to discuss those questions, but I just wanted to make a couple of quick comments. In an ideal world, I would have wished for more factual and historical information as part of your committee process. I know that you have not had much time, and I know that the public does not want propaganda. But it would have been helpful to have more background at these sessions and maybe to have some background on each first nation in each area that you're visiting. I feel that the summary presented by the minister at the open cabinet meeting in Penticton was a good start, and I'm hoping there'll be more of that as these processes move ahead.

           Although I agree with Dr. Tennant that a treaty process may raise public awareness, there are a number of reasons why it's problematic. I'll just touch on a couple of them. Firstly, as many people have pointed out, it's potentially in conflict with the 19 BCTC task force principles. Secondly, as Hamar Foster said, representative democracy was good enough to take away first nations lands. It should be good enough to give some of them back. Thirdly, with all due respect to the member for Nanaimo, I have to say that the public and third parties have had numerous and ongoing opportunities for

[ Page 598 ] 

input into the treaty process. We have the TAC, the TNAC, the RAC and various other formalized processes. In Nanaimo alone we've had over 100 public negotiations sessions or open meetings — over 100.

           What I can't understand is how it's going to be more meaningful for a citizen of Nanaimo to answer some vague provincewide question than it would be for them to attend those meetings and ask specific questions about specific issues in their area. After each open negotiation session in Nanaimo there's a chance for public questions and for the public to raise concerns. I just can't understand how a vague, general question would be more meaningful for citizens in that area.

           A fourth quick point. In my opinion, the province has breached its legal obligations by suspending the process. We've got provincial negotiators sitting there marking time at the table and first nations accumulating debt, and that's a problem.

           Fifthly, and maybe most importantly, a referendum is not going to advance the treaty process. The primary barrier to concluding treaties is narrow provincial mandates. A referendum that results in even narrower provincial mandates is really more likely to collapse the process than it is to advance it.

           Regarding the form of referendum questions. I'm not going to offer an opinion on whether a referendum should go ahead or not, but if the government is dead set on a referendum, I suggest that the questions should be in the form of objectives rather than yes-no substantive questions. I say that for two reasons. One is that it's much easier to work with objectives at the treaty table and to negotiate with some flexibility. Secondly, as a taxpayer I'm concerned that if your government holds a binding referendum under the Referendum Act, whenever the negotiators try and negotiate something that's not exactly in line with that precise wording, everyone's going to jump out of the woodwork and start suing the government. This is going to cost taxpayers a tremendous amount of money for no gain. I've had a number of meetings with the minister, and he said there hasn't been a decision on whether or not the process will be under that Referendum Act. I'm hoping that it's not.

           Regarding the content of referendum questions. I had a hard time approaching this. I originally sat down and made up a list of three categories: the good, the bad, the ugly. What I did after that, because I only had ten minutes, was combine the bad and the ugly questions into more formal-sounding, non-viable referendum questions. I've got five of those, and I'll try and just touch quickly on a couple of them.

           The first non-viable question is: should treaties with first nations be based on equality? I have to say that this is intuitively appealing, but in reality it's a damaging question. The reason it's intuitively appealing is that equality as a concept has inherent merit. We can all agree with equality. The problem is that this concept is used by a small group of people who fashion it into an attractive façade to cover over less attractive and less meritorious beliefs about first nations.

[1620] 

           I have to say that it's a strange world we live in, where healthy and prosperous citizens can somehow transform themselves into victims groups. We have people running around claiming that they're being victimized by first nations and that first nations are getting a free ride, and completely ignoring the fact that…. I know that members of this committee have spent time on reserves. There's not a free ride there. Those people are suffering. We have to admit the fact that we're not victims and that first nations have much lower standards of living on average than we do. They don't get free homes on reserves. Even when they pay to build a home, they don't own the land. They pay taxes. Over 75 percent of first nations people pay taxes, so I'm just hoping that as part of this process we can at least get some common facts to work with.

           Another concern I have about equality is that any human rights analyst, anyone who reads Canadian court judgments will know that the courts and the analysts repeatedly state the proposition that equal treatment of unequals perpetuates inequality.

           My personal opinion, and there might not be universal agreement on this, is that if we want formal equality we need to make it retroactive. Historically, first nations were not allowed to pre-empt land the way that white settlers were. As Ron Martin stated very eloquently earlier, first nations weren't allowed to vote in elections until quite recently. From 1927 to 1951 it was illegal for first nations to hire lawyers to protect their rights in court.

           The summary is that we've benefited immensely from discrimination against first nations. If we want to give back to the first nations all the lands and resources that we took, undo the damage from residential schools and discriminatory laws and start all over again, then we can talk about equality. If we don't want to do that, then we have to accept that first nations will have different rights, and we have to march along together in parallel paths and work together.

           I'm not saying that discussions about equality have no place in treaty negotiations, because it's a fundamental touchstone. Everyone wants to know about fairness and equality. Any public policy analysis, any debate, needs to touch on those issues. All I'm saying is that if we want to talk about equality, let's talk about it in the full context of history and in the full context of the entire treaty settlement that's being negotiated in each area.

           In my written submission, I've provided some comments about why finality is not a good question for a referendum, and I'll just leave that to my written submission.

           I wanted to touch briefly on the certainty issue. I submit that a question on certainty is not a good question and that the certainty myth has been haunting and hampering the treaty process for the last decade. This is my third non-viable question.

           The problem with this concept is that it's used to defeat creative proposals and resolutions by first nations. For example, some first nations I am aware of are willing to accept a smaller amount of treaty settlement

[ Page 599 ] 

land if they have access to resources outside of their treaty settlement land, if there are some kind of comanagement arrangements. The provincial negotiators shoot down these proposals under the banner of certainty, and I believe that's a problem.

           Another problem with certainty is that it's also used to argue that self-government is not viable. With respect, I have to say that this is a silly argument. If we look south of the border, we have 502 Indian tribes in the United States. Each of those has the legal status of a domestic nation. Each of those has full rights of self-government. They have their own courts. They have their own justice systems. They have their own police. They have their own education systems. And they have, let's face it, huge reserves. In contrast to our miserly and embarrassing reserve allotments in Canada, look to the U.S. We're talking hundreds of millions of acres. All of the reserves added together in Canada, the total land base, add up to less than the area of one single Navajo reservation in the States.

           The self-government rights of so many Indian tribes over such large areas of the United States in so many areas of jurisdiction have not collapsed the American economy. The American economy has flourished under these conditions.

           I also want to note that it's probably not fair for the province to demand certainty from first nations when the province isn't offering certainty to first nations. For example, the province has refused to incorporate environmental protection standards in treaties, and the province has refused to make commitments not to double-tax treaty settlement land. If we want to talk about fairness, if the provincial government wants certainty from first nations, it should be offering certainty to first nations.

[1625] 

           In my written submission I also discuss the technical issue of certainty and the connection to the so-called surrender…. Well, it's called modification and release language in the Nisga'a treaty, which is basically extinguishment language. I'll just leave that to my written submission. My concern there is that if the public is voting on certainty, thinking it means one thing, and the provincial negotiators have a technical meaning for certainty, we're running into a problem with ambiguity. That's all I wanted to say on that.

           My fourth non-viable question is whether treaties should be affordable. I'll just refer the committee to my written submission on that.

           My fifth non-viable question is: should self-government be limited to a delegated municipal style of government? I would say that any question on self-government is out of the question. I know speakers before me have cited this. I just want to read a quote from a case that was brought by three plaintiffs whose names bear a striking resemblance to our current Premier, Minister of Forests and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

           This is paragraph 137: "Does section 35 protect aboriginal self-government?" This is the court speaking: "Can it be, as the plaintiffs' submission would hold, that a limited right to self-government cannot be protected constitutionally by section 35(1)? I think not." The question is answered by Delgamuukw: "The right to aboriginal title 'in its full form' including the right for the community to make decisions as to the use of the land…is, I conclude, constitutionally guaranteed by section 35."

           It seems fairly straightforward. Self-government is an aboriginal right. Our courts say it is, so it can't be a question in the referendum.

           I'm probably running out of time, so I'll just quickly move on from the bad and the ugly questions to questions that aren't necessarily good questions, but they might be viable. Three questions:

           1. Do you prefer negotiated settlements with first nations instead of litigation or confrontation?

           2. Should treaties provide a fair and just settlement?

           3. Should treaties be sustainable and promote greater self-sufficiency for first nations?

           I'll close on my point under question No. 1. The Oka crisis cost taxpayers over $200 million. The Delgamuukw court case cost taxpayers a similar amount. They didn't resolve anything. I think it would be important for the taxpayers to comment on which route they would prefer. Thank you for your time.

           V. Anderson: You talked about aboriginal self-government in the U.S. For that, you used the term "domestic nation." Could you amplify that? If I'm hearing rightly, domestic nation is thought of as a nation within the U.S., whereas the popular notion of aboriginal nation here is something outside of Canada but sitting within it. Could you comment on those two descriptions? If so, is it a change of terminology or a better understanding of the meaning that we need to get so that we get away from these ambiguities and contradictions?

           M. Browne: That's an excellent point. My opinion is that it needs much more discussion. We all talk about self-government and what our concerns are if we have self-government for first nations. I haven't heard many people discuss what that means. We hear about sovereignty. Let me put it this way: no first nation that I represent or work with is currently looking for sovereignty outside of the Canadian constitution.

           In the United States the courts developed this model, which they call domestic dependent nationhood. I think it's what you would call self-government, but they're still subject to the laws and the constitution of the federal government there.

           I think we need to distinguish between sovereignty, self-government and what is unfortunately being called municipal-delegated government. I also think there's an important distinction between delegated government and self-government under the constitution. A first nation can exercise self-government under the constitution, not be sovereign, still be part of Canada

[ Page 600 ] 

but not take its powers from the provincial government. Does that sort of answer the question?

           V. Anderson: You made the distinction that they're not taking their powers from the provincial government, but they are taking their powers from the federal government under the constitution.

[1630] 

           M. Browne: I would say that there are at least two ways of going there. One is that a first nation can express its inherent right of self-government in terms of the Canadian constitution. You sign a treaty. It sets out what the self-government is, and it falls under the constitution. Things that don't fit with the constitution aren't part of that right. Another model, which is kind of like the Yukon model and maybe the Sechelt model, is the federal government delegates the authority.

           V. Anderson: Either way, if there were not a federal government, there would not be a constitution. They are two sides of the same coin. That's what I'm trying to get at. It just depends which way you say it.

           M. Browne: That's true. Yes.

           J. Les (Chair): Murray, we're out of time, but I have to ask one question. Because it is the provincial government that has taken this initiative, what tends to happen is that the debate happens around the provincial aspect of what is essentially a three-sided discussion: federal, provincial and first nation.

           Briefly, have you any comments on the federal government role, and should the treaty process take on a less comprehensive dimension? Should some of the issues on the treaty tables be dealt with more bilaterally?

           M. Browne: Great question. I'll try and answer it really quickly. I don't know if that should or shouldn't happen, but it probably will happen. If the provincial government is not inclined to negotiate self-government for first nations, first nations have the option of negotiating bilaterally. Then it becomes interesting, because…. Actually, the minister is talking about incremental certainty and building blocks to treaty. There's a lot of merit in that idea.

           I just also wanted to say that one of the reasons why a first nation might be compelled to negotiate bilaterally for self-government is if the province is only offering delegated municipal government and they're not willing to provide the same things they do to municipal governments…. The province is on record as saying: "If a first nation has delegated government, we will not provide municipal infrastructure grants to them." If you're going to treat them worse than a municipality, I don't see any first nation taking up that option, and I see them being compelled to negotiate bilaterally with Canada.

           J. Les (Chair): Having recently come from the municipal sector, let me tell you that there was precious little coming from the provincial government to municipalities anymore.

           In any event, thank you very much for your presentation. It was much appreciated.

           The next presenter is Gabe Haythornthwaite.

           G. Haythornthwaite: To understand the government's purpose in launching this treaty referendum process, I think we have to look at the assumptions behind your aboriginal policies. The key assumption of the Liberals, I think, is that the B.C. treaty process has been too generous to native demands. This is seen in the Liberals' characterization of the Nisga'a agreement as a race-based legislation that threatens both the political disenfranchisement of settler citizens as well as the economic bankruptcy of the B.C. treasury.

           Now, I think the Liberal point of view in the case of the Nisga'a deal doesn't ignore two important points. First is the municipal status of the Nisga'a government in which their powers are subordinate to the legal authority of both the province and the federal government. The second is the estimated $3 billion extracted by resource companies from the traditional territory of the Nisga'a, over the last century, without either their consent or compensation.

           Similarly, I think the Liberal point of view on the treaty process flies in the face of two realities. The first is the broader reality in which the prosperity of the mainstream society has been gained in exploiting lands that weren't theirs in the first place. The second is the actual character of the B.C. treaty process, as revealed by the previous government's policies and practices, both inside and outside of negotiations. Far from being a process in which the surrender of B.C. and the wallets of non-native taxpayers to the original inhabitants of the land was at stake, instead what we have seen is a modern-day campaign by colonial governments to get native signatures on nineteenth-century-style cede-and-surrender treaties.

[1635] 

           The fact that we can see the B.C. treaty process as a coercive venture can be seen in the following items, which the previous government decided were not negotiable: the insistence upon extinguishing all future native claims to land and resources; keeping private property, particularly that of the resource companies, off the table; there is to be no negotiating of the municipal status of first nations governments; the insistence that native people should be forced to give up their privilege of untaxed poverty.

           Another element that shows the coerced nature of the process, before your time, is the fact that first nations were forced to assume equal costs of the process — equal, that is, to each of the federal and provincial governments — in which they have owed those costs as debts to their negotiator adversaries. What kind of process is that, I ask? Certainly not one based on any form of equality whatsoever.

           At the same time, there is a parallel process of secret land sales in which disputed Crown land that was under negotiation was secretly sold to third parties, a practice so widespread that in July 1999 two dozen

[ Page 601 ] 

bands signed a protocol alliance to oppose these secret land sales and other government selling tactics.

           Apparently the NDP has not been hardline and deceitful enough. The Liberals have further narrowed the range of items that are negotiable. Municipal first nations governments must be entirely subordinate to the authority of the provincial and federal governments. They should not even have the token status of constitutional protection. Also not negotiable is the content of legal jurisdiction or the status of aboriginal land title. The most lucrative resources, oil and gas, are not to be entrusted to first nations. This is an item that's not negotiable.

           The Liberals have wisely decided that they cannot relinquish their practice of secret land sales. In fact, they've made this a matter of principle in that they will not even discuss the matter with first nations in the treaty process. Furthermore, the Liberals have placed the jurisdiction of the treaty process under the Attorney General's office, making treaty negotiations a law-and-order issue and effectively criminalizing the concerns of native peoples.

           In the end this referendum is not really about policy. That has already been set. Instead, this is about winning a debate that the Liberals are setting up. This is a debate about how to achieve the colonial objectives of purging both the moral claims of native peoples as well as the settler guilt that flows from indefensible policies of unilateral dispossession.

           There are two different positions in this colonial debate. You could call it the good cop and the bad cop, in which your predecessor, I suppose, could be called the good cop. However, despite the hyperbole and the hysteria on both sides of the question, they both actually share a common set of assumptions and desires. The first is the desire to set a double standard against native aspirations for self-determination, to place restrictions upon the freedom of native peoples so that we can provide unlimited freedom for business and government activities. I think we can see this desire expressed in two ways, which your government shares with the previous government. The first is the one-sided certainty sought in the treaty process, in which native communities are expected to give up all future claims so that governments can facilitate the ever-growing demands of business upon the peoples' lands and resources of the province. The second can be seen in the nature of the municipal government of first nations in which there's to be a 15-year time limit on transfers. Essentially, this is based upon the premise that first nations municipalities must become sufficient in that 15 years. This is, interestingly, a principle that no non-native municipality is forced to contend with.

[1640] 

           I think there's a common assumption here in this debate. That common assumption is based upon a total contempt of native peoples that denies their existence as peoples with inherent rights to pursue their own paths and determine their own affairs. Instead, I think that native peoples tend to be viewed as either a race of hard-luck individuals or as dependent ethnic minorities. What is very interesting about that is that native leaders who are dependent on the treaty process have actually used this argument — the argument that their status as minorities should excuse them from a debate with racists.

           It's fairly clear that the boycott position of the First Nations Summit and the NDP will mean that the Liberal government will score an easy victory in this treaty referendum. However, I think that will prove to be hollow for two reasons. The first is that there's limited use in winning a war of ideas over already vanquished adversaries who refuse to debate. The second, and probably more important, is that because not a single native community in the treaty process would accept the relatively liberal deals that the NDP had on offer, the treaty process was effectively dead as of last year, if we recall, with the Sechelt pullout of their agreement-in-principle of May 2000.

           I think rather than revitalizing treaty negotiations, this referendum will simply slap the lid on the casket that the treaty process is already entombed in. The reason why I think your victory in the treaty referendum will be rather hollow is that then there will be no means to settle accounts with indigenous peoples, except through the old discredited ways: unilateral dispossession, land sales and the criminalization of native resistance.

           Now, I would conclude by saying that there is an upside to this and that, actually, I am in favour. I think the treaty referendum is a very good thing to happen, because we need to finally have debate over a question that has been put in the shadows of backroom deals and courts for too long, in processes that are inaccessible to the vast majority of people from both settler and native communities. I think the upside of the treaty referendum is that perhaps now native communities will reject pursuing reconciliation through government-dominated channels and will instead look to their own strengths to decide what freedom and responsibility peoples, communities and individuals should have in pursuing their own paths and determining their own affairs and will pursue the building of relationships based upon equality and respect.

           I also think it's an opportunity to address non-native communities, to try to convince as many people as possible that by supporting the government's campaign against native peoples they're only strengthening the hand of those powerful institutions who have always profited and continue to profit from the vulnerability of ordinary people. I think today we see that the cycle of unregulated development and capital flight is playing out to rob the future of many communities, both native and non-native.

           What I would hope to see come out of this process, to be born of this process, is to build new relationships between peoples and between communities that respect mutual autonomy and the right of all to the basic means of existence, and to recognize that this cannot happen in the corridors of power and wealth. Instead, it requires a common struggle of these communities against the forces of political authoritarianism — that is, of policies that are already set but are not subject to either negotiation or discussion — as well as of economic

[ Page 602 ] 

dispossession and cultural homogenization. I think that only through such a struggle could Canada ever hope to live up to its self-proclaimed status as a just society.

           What I'm actually hoping is that you will come out with a fairly straightforward question in which you will put your position in the treaty process, your opinions of native peoples and what their rights should and shouldn't be, to a clear yes or no question. If you make this simply a focus group question, I think you'll look like fools. You'll look like you've wasted people's money. If you put forward a clear question, at least it will show that you're serious about having a debate and that you're there to actually try to win some legitimacy for your already determined policies. Thank you for your time.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you. Any questions from committee members?

           V. Anderson: It's different. Thank you. I appreciate your ability with ideas and words very much, because you highlight issues that other people have tried to say in different words. I appreciate that.

[1645] 

           I wanted to check out if I hear what you're trying to say — that first of all, we need to have a mirror on ourselves as to what we are doing and whether it's really what we think we're doing. Or are we doing things that we don't know we're doing? We may say we're doing good things, but in actual fact, from your point of view, we're doing bad things in following a tradition of activities in government that we've inherited without changing. I'm trying to say somewhat what I hear you saying.

           G. Haythornthwaite: I think that flows from white guilt, which I think has never done native peoples any good. There are two ways in which white guilt plays out. It plays out through paralysis: "Well, what can we do? It's hopeless. They're in a hopeless situation. It's terrible. I wish something could be done." But it's never a priority because, frankly, in the end it's not us. I think there's another reaction to white guilt, though, and that's denial. It's to say: "Well, that's happened all in the past, and we've got to get on with today." Of course we know that what we have today…. All the relations in society flow from the past. We can't address the problems of today by simply denying the past.

           I would question the priorities of a government that thinks it's doing good for native peoples, based upon premises that the previous government's policies were too generous to native communities in the treaty process. I'm not certain, in the end, if it's confusion on your government's part or whether it's part of a deliberate agenda. I'll probably leave that up to other people to decide whether it's confusion or deliberate.

           V. Anderson: Let me just put that one different way. Because of the cultural orientation of the people historically, whether they had meant to do right or wrong, their actions caused the situation that we're now in. If we're still operating with the same cultural assumptions, then the process will still prove to be difficult unless our own cultural assumptions are re-evaluated.

           G. Haythornthwaite: I think that's a part. A re-evaluation of cultural assumptions is part of that long-term process that you're talking about.

           J. Les (Chair): Just a comment, Gabe. You suggested that the responsibility being moved from the former Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to the Attorney General's ministry was perhaps wrong. We have heard numerous times over the last weeks from aboriginal people, particularly, who cry out for the responsibility for this matter federally to be moved from the Department of Indian Affairs to the Department of Justice, which in fact is what we have done. You can appreciate from that, that we hear diametrically opposed points of view from time to time.

           The other thing I just want to leave with you is that simply because this particular government has difficulty with the Nisga'a agreement does not mean that this government is less generous. It may be, in fact, that some of us feel that the Nisga'a agreement is misguided and will not provide the Nisga'a people what they're hoping to achieve. Now, the jury is out on that, and only time will tell whether in fact that is the case. I would just caution you: don't jump to conclusions such as that the generosity does not exist to conclude these matters in an appropriate way.

           G. Haythornthwaite: May I quickly address the matters you've raised? Firstly, with respect to transfer of authority, I think that why people in aboriginal communities may favour moving the jurisdiction to either the Attorney General or the Ministry of Justice is a feeling that they'll get a better hearing in the courts and through institutions that are closer to the legal system. However, we know that the Attorney General's office is not just about justice. We know that it has security priorities as well, as we saw. For instance, the former Attorney General who then became Premier Dosanjh was the head of the military-style operation at Gustafsen Lake.

           That would be my concern — that there may be the justice side of it. You can judge whether colonial justice has done well by native peoples or not, but there's also the fact that the Attorney General is responsible for security matters as well, which concerns me.

[1650] 

           Now, with respect to what you said about the Nisga'a deal, it seems to me that the criticism was that the Nisga'a government was given too many powers. It was given powers over peoples living within their settlement areas. It was characterized that they would be disenfranchised, because they could not vote for the municipal-style government of the Nisga'a. Even though they could of course still vote, they had never voted municipally beforehand. They could still vote provincially and federally.

           I also recall that the Nisga'a deal was seen as too expensive, too costly to the B.C. taxpayer. I can only

[ Page 603 ] 

draw from that criticism that you wish to conclude deals at a cheaper price. Maybe "generosity" is the wrong word, but it seems to me that if you're trying to get deals for less, that isn't more generous.

           J. Les (Chair): The only person in this room who's trying to get deals for less is me. That's a bad one, I know.

           G. Haythornthwaite: I appreciate my time is just about over, but one last point. My concern with the approach of your government and the credence you're giving to certain ideas — the "nothing is too much" constituency that's out there — is that when we think the treaty process has been too generous to native concerns, we look at these principles for treaty negotiations that were drawn up by the previous government. None of them say we're here to make sure the historic claims of native peoples are addressed, that wrongs of the past are righted today. They're all addressed to precisely the constituency that argues that, if anything, the natives have already gotten too much and they deserve nothing else. Every single one of these speaks to that point of view.

           Given the fact that those were the principles of the previous government, your own government — in attacking the Nisga'a deal, which was a template deal for the treaty process, on the basis that it gave too many powers and was too costly to the B.C. taxpayer — is giving credence to those out there who would deny basic historical fact.

           J. Les (Chair): Gabe, we're going to have to leave it at that. Thank you for your presentation.

           G. Haythornthwaite: Thank you for your time.

           J. Les (Chair): The next presenter is Avigail Eisenberg on behalf of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

           A. Eisenberg: Right before your meal break — right?

           J. Les (Chair): No, we've got a little while to go yet.

           A. Eisenberg: Great. I'll go quickly. In general, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association supports negotiated settlements to claims for aboriginal title and self-government. The Civil Liberties Association supported the Nisga'a treaty, for example, on the basis that it provided overdue recognition of the Nisga'a claim to aboriginal title over land and self-governing authority, which the Nisga'a themselves wanted.

           The B.C. Civil Liberties Association opposed the proposal for a provincewide referendum on the Nisga'a treaty, because, in short, such a proposal was viewed by the association as unnecessary and unfair. It was viewed as unnecessary because we view our form of government, which is responsible parliamentary government based on representation, as perfectly capable of resolving complex questions and shaping policies of the sort that together comprise the Nisga'a treaty.

           Exceptional circumstances may certainly arise within any democratic community in which a referendum would be a helpful means of directing public policy, but in the case of the Nisga'a treaty, the BCCLA viewed a referendum as an unfair means of verifying the endorsement of non-Nisga'a people in British Columbia. Referenda based on minority issues are inherently problematic, since the protection of minority rights and interests cannot simply be subject to the will of the majority. Again, Canadian democracy is representative democracy for a good reason. It's one in which we elect our political agents to give effect to our collective will. If they don't do so, they get voted out the next time — right? Responsible government.

           Generally speaking, the Civil Liberties Association is averse to a provincewide referendum on aboriginal treaties, since a referendum would be an ineffective way of engaging citizens in debate and decision-making regarding treaties. The knowledge exhibited by British Columbians about the history of aboriginal and non-aboriginal relations and about the current situation of aboriginal peoples, including their rights and responsibilities within the province, is at best extremely mixed. Although we have no doubt that when informed, individuals in this province may be capable of engaging in constructive debate on this or any other subject, they are not at present adequately informed.

[1655] 

           In light of this and given the complexity of the issues raised by treaties, it is difficult to comprehend how citizens can engage in constructive debate and decision-making about the principles that ought to guide the treaty negotiation process.

           That said, the Civil Liberties Association decided in good faith it would take the new Liberal government at its word — namely, that the impetus for a referendum would be to reinvigorate the aboriginal treaty process on the basis of respect for the first nations of British Columbia. In that spirit, the association has carefully considered what positive questions might be posed in a referendum that would accomplish this goal. So as not to keep you in suspense, we couldn't come to a positive question, but let me pose three and tell you about the civil liberties problems with them.

           For example, we considered a question that would include a clear preamble stating that aboriginal rights, such as aboriginal title to land and self-government, are guaranteed in our constitution and have been affirmed in Canadian jurisprudence, which they are and have been. In light of this preamble British Columbians could be asked whether they prefer negotiation or litigation as a means of resolving aboriginal claims.

           We rejected this question for two reasons. First, we think that litigation would be a disastrous way to settle most of these claims. In this respect the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly signalled in Sparrow, Delgamuukw and many other section 35 cases that negotiated solutions are more appropriate and less costly than litigated ones. Second, because there may be some exceptional cases in which litigation is appropriate, a

[ Page 604 ] 

referendum that bound the province to only negotiate settlements might prove to be too confining in the future.

           Then we considered another question on the issue of self-government. British Columbians could be asked whether they would prefer the self-government provisions to be constitutionally protected under section 35 and thus be somewhat permanent, such as the Nisga'a treaty rights, or whether they prefer a delegated model, such as the model adopted by the Sechelt. We quickly discarded such a question as being too complex, too easily misunderstood and therefore too easily manipulated by various interested parties in the process. Moreover, the outcome of such a referendum might bind the government in a way that would not be conducive to productive negotiations.

           We considered a question that might be less controversial from both an aboriginal and a non-aboriginal perspective. The Civil Liberties Association has done considerable work on the question of the right of non-aboriginal residents on aboriginal territory to participate in a meaningful way in community decision-making that significantly and directly affects them. This is one of the issues in relation to the Musqueam reserve off Point Grey.

           The Civil Liberties Association, in discussing the rights of non-aboriginal people living on aboriginal land, concluded that non-aboriginal people do in some circumstances hold such a right to participate. British Columbians could be asked, therefore, whether treaties ought to be negotiated with the aim of protecting this right, but this question is really a sideshow, though an important one to the main issues surrounding aboriginal treaties. Moreover, the provincial government is on record as including this as a principle of negotiating with first nations, so this doesn't seem to be an appropriate question.

           After careful consideration we returned to our first intuition, not only that a provincewide referendum is an ineffective means for citizen participation on the question of aboriginal treaty but that referenda are potentially damaging to such negotiations. Aboriginal treaty issues are so complex that it would indeed require considerable background knowledge to make an informed decision not only about what question to ask but also about how to answer it. Posing a straightforward, honest but meaningful question that would truly guide provincial negotiators is, in our considered view, impossible.

           We must also pause to comment on the inherent unfairness of a referendum on aboriginal treaties. It's true that all British Columbians have something very important to gain from a fair and conclusive settlement of claims with B.C. first nations. First, hopefully treaties will provide an important means to renew the relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. Second, treaties will provide the tools necessary for aboriginal people to become self-governing. Finally, treaties will provide important certainty for economic development for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

[1700] 

           Notwithstanding these gains for non-aboriginal people, many British Columbians, no matter how the question is worded or what information is provided, will perceive that aboriginal treaties provide "special rights" for aboriginal people. As such, many people will be motivated to respond in the negative towards any positive question that is asked in a referendum simply because of this perception. If the question doesn't allow them to register their protest, they will likely not vote or destroy their ballot. This is actually based on research that's been done in the United States on a lot of referendum questions. When referendum questions are perceived as giving special rights to a minority group, they are nearly always voted down. The majority votes against special rights. In sum, minority rights do not lend themselves well to referenda.

           Having returned to our initial intuition that a referendum on aboriginal treaties, no matter how it is dressed up, is a bad idea, we are nevertheless open to questions from the panel about questions that they are entertaining. Maybe we can be convinced that our intuition, after some consideration, is wrong. We'd be happy to provide comment. Thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Avigail.

           Any questions from anyone?

           D. MacKay: Because you do look after civil liberties and you're a great watchdog for government and everybody else…. You people sometimes think that we're stepping on the civil liberties of the people of the province. I just wanted to go back to the Nisga'a issue for a minute and ask you about the people that…. I've got to back up a tiny bit. One of the 19 positions is that private property is not on the table during treaty negotiations. In the Nisga'a treaty we found several people who had private property. Their private property is now within the core lands, and they're governed by Nisga'a. However, these people don't have a right to vote for the Nisga'a government that controls their lives. I just wondered what your view is on that. Did we make a mistake with Nisga'a when that was done?

           A. Eisenberg: I think that what the Civil Liberties Association has said with respect…. Let me just back up and say, on a more principled way, that it is not a principle of representative government in Canada, nor has it been since Montreal got rid of its municipal bylaw that said you had to own property in order to vote. The connection between owning property and voting is anachronistic in Canada. We give the vote out for a variety of reasons, not necessarily only to property holders, even though that's definitely been the history of how the vote has been given out.

           The way in which Civil Liberties looks at the right to participation of non-aboriginal people who are living in aboriginal communities is that there definitely is a right — not necessarily because they own property — that if they are directly affected by decisions taken by the government, there ought to be provisions for meaningful participation. That doesn't mean — and, in fact,

[ Page 605 ]

our position is constructed so as to avoid the situation — a majority of non-aboriginal people can basically outvote aboriginal people on aboriginal territory. We view this as something that ought to be balanced and considered. There ought to be fairness. The principle of meaningful participation is something that all Canadians have a right to but that within a context, which is very unique, of aboriginal self-government, the way in which you work out what meaningful participation is and the way in which you allow for non-aboriginal people to meaningfully participate is important to work out, but it doesn't have to be precisely how you would participate in other communities in Canada.

           M. Hunter: I want to thank you for your presentation and refer to your last point. You make the point that people will perceive in a potential question that we're talking about special rights. You said that in the United States there is evidence that that happens and people vote down initiatives where those kinds of questions are asked. Can you point me to some references where I can find that out? Do you have them on your website?

           A. Eisenberg: I certainly can. Right off the top of my head or just generally?

           M. Hunter: Well, maybe if you could provide those via e-mail to the Committee Clerk at a later date, I'd appreciate it.

[1705] 

           A. Eisenberg: Sure. There are a couple of things. One of the things I've just published is on that, and it goes through some of the literature not only in the United States…. And here I'm thinking of the Colorado initiative on gay and lesbian rights. It wasn't about extending special rights to gays and lesbians; it was about extending equal protection to gays and lesbians. In the case of that referendum we found that third-party interest groups participating in the referendum were the ones that cast the issue as one about special rights.

           If the populace is convinced of that, they will vote down special rights. It's quite a consistent pattern. You find the same things in the referendums that happened in eastern Europe, actually — the same sort of trend.

           M. Hunter: It sounds like I gave you a platform to promote your book, but that's okay.

           A. Eisenberg: It's not a book.

           M. Hunter: If you can just give the committee the reference so we can check it out, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

           V. Anderson: Just to follow that up. From the discussion we've been having, when you mentioned that third parties would come in and vote down the issue, it seems to me that third parties could vote against the issue from two directions. Either they thought you were denying rights, or another third party could interpret it that you were giving rights. So you would have two parties on the opposite poles that, in the emotion of the discussion…. The other people would defeat each other and doubly defeat the motion there.

           A. Eisenberg: It's possible. I don't mean to burden the committee with too many technicalities of the research. As we all know in politics, interest groups are free to act — as they should be — in whatever way they want.

           A question that has been the focus of a lot of interesting research in Canada and the United States is how minorities are affected by referenda. There is a diversity of opinions. The information suggests that in the context of Canada and specifically in the context of the United States, when referenda are perceived publicly — whoever wins the marketing campaign — as giving to groups special rights, the general population tends to vote that down. It's not because the general population is necessarily opposed to special rights, I should say, but a referendum is a context in which the whole structure of the decision-making apparatus is that we're all equal ? right? We're all the same; we're all voting exactly the same. In that context, to give one group something that none of us have is quite an exceptional thing. That's why any sort of constitutional deal…. That consideration was also discussed at length in the study of the Charlottetown accord and why it was defeated.

           J. Les (Chair): Okay. I'm going to have to leave it there, Avigail. We're running considerably behind at this point. I want to thank you for your presentation on behalf of the Civil Liberties Association.

           I now call up the next presenter, who is Adriane Carr from the Green Party.

           A. Carr: Thank you for this opportunity to speak in front of you on a subject that is of extreme importance to all British Columbians and to the future of this province as well.

           Before directly addressing the question and issue in front of this panel, I'd like to just provide a bit of brief background information. The Green Party of B.C. was founded in 1983. We have stood for social justice, peaceful resolution to conflicts, sustainable development and putting more control into local community hands. Since our beginning — I was one of the cofounders, so I was there right at the beginning — we have supported the fair and just settlement of issues with the aboriginal peoples of B.C.

[1710] 

           You will be receiving my brief as well as The Green Book 2001. I will quote directly from that, because the principles outlined in that book around the issues of fair and just reconciliation of first nations title and rights and the treaty process, I believe, form the core of the recommendations I want to make to you and this panel.

           Those recommendations are to place high priority on proceeding with fair and just processes to reconcile

[ Page 606 ] 

first nations, B.C. and Canadian sovereignties. Fair negotiations mean that the government of B.C. must stop demanding the extinguishment of first nations title and rights as a precondition for an agreement. Secondly, recognize that first nations histories and self-governments are distinct according to each first nation, and therefore each process of reconciliation must be individually agreed to and appropriate to each first nation.

           Thirdly, we believe that the process of reconciliation must establish the ultimate goal of first nations having control over and access to sufficient resources to bring first nations out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. Fourthly, negotiate in good faith with the utmost of haste with first nations who do wish to participate in the treaty process. Fifthly, support negotiation of interim measures agreements that provide first nations with the right to review and approve or reject activities that would foreclose opportunities that might be obtained through treaty by irrevocably changing their land or their connection to it prior to the final signing of a treaty. Finally, we are opposed to a provincial referendum on first nations treaties.

           Just to clarify May 16 of this year, the Green Party of B.C. did garner 12.4 percent of the vote in this province, nearly 200,000 votes. Our party membership has grown continuously since then and is now at 3,000 paying members. I've been reconfirmed and re-elected as the leader, so I'm speaking to you on behalf of that support base.

           In general, the B.C. Green Party is not opposed to the idea of holding referenda. In fact, the party is endorsing my initiative, which would lead potentially to a referendum regarding transforming our first-past-the-post electoral system to one of a balanced proportional-representation system. That certainly would've decreased the number of seats your government currently holds from the 97 percent or 77 seats, which you don't represent, to 58 percent of the vote that you did achieve. If it had been in place prior to the last election, it would have had, for example, Green Party members elected and perhaps all-nations parties' representatives elected, which we believe would have provided for a more balanced and representative Legislature.

           Although the Green Party of B.C. is not opposed in general to referenda, I must make it absolutely clear that there is a class of topics that is totally inappropriate for the public referendum process. These are topics that have already been decided upon and form the basis of our democracy: constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms and moral issues such as righting historic wrongs. Citizens cannot vote away these rights for any ethnic group, aboriginal group, minority or anyone protected by our constitution and our courts of law. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the Delgamuukw decision, established that first nations rights are inalienable and cannot be unilaterally extinguished. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for negotiation and reconciliation.

           The Green Party of B.C. says no to the notion of holding a referendum about aboriginal issues. We believe it cannot serve any political, social, economic or moral good. It can only serve to further divide people in this province. I've actually thought and thought…. I took a long time trying to imagine what kind of question could be asked which wouldn't ultimately boil down in people's minds to being a question in which they would vote either in support of first nations title and rights or against first nations title and rights. I could not think of a question. I encourage you to please advocate not proceeding with a referendum, even though I know that's not the mandate of your committee. I recognize that.

[1715] 

           Certainly, in the submissions that I've heard and read, there is significant opposition to the holding of a referendum, and I trust this committee will fairly reflect that back to your government as a whole.

           Coming to terms with aboriginal peoples is a legal and moral necessity and obligation of this government. The parts of your hearings that I believe you should review most carefully are the testimonies made by aboriginal peoples themselves and those that suggest ways to reconcile rights and improve the treaty process. Figuring out ways to expedite the process to achieve just and fair resolution and reconciliation would be a good outcome.

           I caution you to carefully discern and set aside testimonies that suggest that non-native rights are more important than aboriginal rights. You are not a court, and this is not your jurisdiction. A prime example, in fact, was a presentation made to you by Marlie Beets of the Council of Forest Industries on October 18. The report is in Hansard, and I quote a section of that into the record now. Ms. Beets said:           "Right now we have the potential for assertions of aboriginal rights over all Crown land, and the Crown's title is burdened. Therefore, provincial decision-makers, the officials who decide whether members I represent can continue with their harvesting plans and so on, are fettered by the fact that if they grant approval for some activity, it could possibly infringe on an aboriginal right. If that's the case, you're getting into a very serious situation….

           "It's that fettering of provincial authorities and burden of aboriginal rights on Crown land that is causing us a great deal of extra expense, litigation, disruption, hostility and controversy. Our experience with that leads us to conclude that if treaties, which also enjoy constitutional protection, result in a broad group of treaty rights that extend onto Crown land, it's possible we will be no further ahead.

           "The members I represent, instead of being held up, disrupted and having difficulties with assertion of aboriginal rights, will simply be facing the same problem with the assertion of a treaty right. That is what leads us to say that the most effective way to avoid that problem or that issue is to confine treaty rights — those that enjoy constitutional protection — to settlement land."

           I do note that the Council of Forest Industries has certainly not read the Delgamuukw decision. Here is the crux of the problem. The Council of Forest Industries wants Crown title to be supreme and to supplant aboriginal title. It wants aboriginal title to be limited in geographic scope so that the forest industry can have unfettered access to most of the land base in B.C., but

[ Page 607 ] 

the actual existence and scope of aboriginal title is not up for negotiation. The courts have already verified that aboriginal rights are constitutionally and legally entrenched, extend over all the traditional territories and are not extinguishable.

           What is up for negotiation is how aboriginal rights and titles will be reconciled with Crown rights and titles — in other words, how these different rights and titles can co-exist so that native and non-native people can co-exist in harmony with each other and to the benefit and prosperity of all. B.C.'s first nations will have to agree to that outcome. I believe it's incumbent on our provincial government to nurture their cooperation, not alienate them with a referendum.

           My final point is that referendums are expensive. Your cost-conscious government should drop the idea on that basis alone. I believe, however, that the costs if you proceed will be far more than monetary. A referendum will cost the goodwill of first nations people, our global reputation on an issue of profound and fundamental human rights and social harmony. I reiterate: please do not proceed with the referendum.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Adriane, for your presentation. Are there any questions from anyone? I suspect not. We're getting awfully close to having to….

           A. Carr: Dinner time?

           J. Les (Chair): Well, dinner time, and we've only got an hour left before we have to reconvene after dinner. Thank you very much.

           The final presenter for this segment is Vicky Husband.

           V. Husband: I'm here to speak on behalf of the Sierra Club of British Columbia.

           J. Les (Chair): I thought you might be.

[1720] 

           V. Husband: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Chair and the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

           The Sierra Club has had a long working relationship with first nations in British Columbia. We value that relationship. It hasn't always been an easy road, but we feel it is vitally important to work together. I've handed out just the policy statement that we passed June 10, 2000. We updated our original statement. I'd just like to read three pieces out of that.

           "The Sierra Club of B.C. recognizes and affirms the existence of aboriginal rights and title as provided in the constitution of Canada act and defined in various court rulings such as Delgamuukw.

           "The Sierra Club of B.C. supports initiatives and undertakings by first nations to address and resolve aboriginal rights and title issues. We support the creation of interim measures agreements, treaties or other forms of negotiation and the right of a first nation to turn to the courts if negotiations fail.

           "The Sierra Club of B.C. will continue to advocate the need for and the benefits of conservation, and will seek ways and means to do so which respect the rights and needs of first nations."

           I'd like to just bring up one example where we have worked together, and it hasn't always been easy. Gillian Trumper will know it well. We have worked with other conservation groups in Clayoquot Sound, with the Nuu-chah-nulth central region chiefs. We supported them on their interim measures agreements. We have spent long hours working together to gain understanding, build mutual respect and trust, and I think we have achieved a lot by working together. I believe Iisaak, which is the new forest corporation that's jointly held by first nations and Weyerhaeuser, will move us down a new road, working towards the goal of self-sufficiency and more equal opportunities. I believe that we have a record there.

           The Sierra Club really believes in a fair and just society. We believe it is about respect. We know that the first nations have taken offence at the proposal for a referendum and that they have opposed it. We also oppose it. A referendum has the potential to increase divisiveness in our province and has the potential for increased racism and increased uncertainty. I do believe it is not the way we'd move forward in a just society. A referendum is not in the public interest, and it is not respectful. In a just society the majority does not vote on minority rights.

           It is doubtful — and this was brought up by other presenters — that a simple yes or no question can really be posed that wouldn't prejudice the treaty process and impinge on minority rights. We believe in finding solutions by working in a cooperative, respectful manner with first nations.

           In the interest of brevity, so you can have your break, we would just like to go on record as opposing the referendum. Thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Vicky. Just one response from me. We quite often have this notion come up that this somehow is a discussion about aboriginal rights, or it's a referendum on aboriginal rights. It is not. Aboriginal rights are clearly defined in the constitution. We recognize those in section 35 and other legal precedents that have fallen from that. This is not a question about what we are going to do; it is a discussion about how we are going to do it. I think there is a significant distinction there, and "how" means: what are the guiding principles that are going to move us forward to engage in the treaty-making process in a productive way? Arguably, the process up to now has not been very productive.

           I just want to leave that with you. You can respond if you like, but it is not about aboriginal rights.

           V. Husband: Well, I guess I beg to differ, and I guess the first nations would beg to differ with you. I think it is about aboriginal rights. A referendum on the treaty process is about aboriginal rights. They've worked very hard to get as far as they have with the treaty process, and I believe we are moving forward with that. Not all first nations have agreed with that, I recognize, but I do think it is all about aboriginal rights, as we might disagree. 

[ Page 608 ] 

           J. Les (Chair): There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree so long as we are not disagreeable. Thank you very much.

           V. Husband: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

           J. Les (Chair): We will recess until 6:15 p.m.

           The committee recessed from 5:24 p.m. to 6:26 p.m.

              [J. Les in the chair.]

           J. Les (Chair): All right, the meeting will reconvene. We have a number of people on our agenda this evening, the first one being Dorothy Field. Good evening.

           D. Field: Thank you. Good evening to you.

           The history of the relationship between the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia and all the rest of us who came later is a history of promises unfulfilled and obligations unmet. The purpose of the treaty process must be to redress that history and to create a new and positive relationship based on respect and mutual trust.

           In B.C. in treaty negotiations in general and in this referendum process in particular, there is a clear power imbalance. First nations make up only a small minority of the population. Their economic power is relatively small. They have no members sitting as MLAs. These facts do nothing to negate the legitimacy of aboriginal claims based on tenancy of British Columbia lands over many thousands of years. If anything, this power imbalance makes clear the need for redress.

           We are dealing with minority rights. A basic principle of minority rights is that the majority cannot make decisions regarding the minority without direct involvement of the minority people themselves. The proposed referendum process violates that basic principle.

           In looking at the list of commissioners on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I note that the members represent only one party, the B.C. Liberal Party. There are no first nations representatives and only one woman. This fact in itself makes this process too flawed to continue.

           In an ideal world the role of government is to knit society together into a living fabric that serves the greater community as well as the smaller communities that make it up — a fabric that embodies civility and ethical consideration to the greatest possible extent; a fabric that represents the human rights of all its people. The proposed referendum would rip the fabric of community, setting one group against another. It has already caused anguish within aboriginal communities as first nations people brace themselves for an increase in racism within our communities.

           The fact that many voices in the aboriginal community are calling for a boycott of the proposed referendum must tell you that the process has violated the principle of direct consultation with the minority peoples who will be directly affected. I have heard Premier Campbell say: "There is no racist agenda here." If he is being honest, he is surely being naïve. The referendum process will unleash racist voices across British Columbia. There is enough racism running as an undercurrent in this province already. The last thing we need is to catalyze bigots and racists. In fact, we need the opposite to begin to truly listen to aboriginal peoples.

           The poisonous climate created by racism will set the treaty process back rather than helping to forward it and make it more effective. For those whose main consideration is economic, this will prolong the climate of uncertainty that currently runs through the province.

[1830] 

           Poisoning relationships between first nations people and non-natives is a high price the province cannot afford to pay, especially just to allow the Premier to fulfil a poorly considered campaign promise.

           To clarify my position, I speak as a private citizen and a member of a minority concerned with the rights of all minorities. For the future of this province as a whole and the first nations in particular, I urge that this referendum process be cancelled and that we commence real dialogue with first nations peoples as soon as possible. Thank you so much.

           V. Anderson: Thank you, Dorothy. Just a comment. Dialogue with the first nations people has been going on in the treaty process, and it will continue to go on. There have been problems with it. We're hearing that from aboriginals and non-aboriginals. With your concern and interest, what would you feel would be the most helpful thing at this point to take the treaty process ahead from here? We've heard that we need more education; we've heard that we need a variety of things. From your perspective, what would be the most helpful thing to move us ahead?

           D. Field: I honestly don't feel like I can speak for aboriginal peoples. Clearly, the treaty process is bogged down, so it seems to me there needs to be some real round-table discussions with as many voices as possible to try to figure out what to do about the treaty process. I don't see this referendum as doing anything except splitting the community in very dangerous ways.

           V. Anderson: I noticed you come from Cobble Hill.

           D. Field: I do.

           V. Anderson: Would you see that there should be some local discussion groups happening in your community and other communities that would help this process along?

           D. Field: I haven't thought about that. I honestly think that these are the questions that you need to address with aboriginal peoples themselves. My issue is really with minority rights. I don't think it's up to me or my neighbours to say what should happen about this. I think the people who must be involved are first nations

[ Page 609 ] 

people. I hope that you are getting many submissions from them.

           I certainly know, from talking to various people…. The people I've spoken to are really in dread of what will be unleashed by this process. They're just trying to think of a strategy to deal with it and how to minimize the fallout from this process. That's a fairly defensive position they're coming from. That's not a position of cooperation and sharing; it's a position of trying to figure out how to stem the deluge which they fear will overtake them. I would say that the thing that has to happen is to begin to have real listening.

           V. Anderson: That's why I was following up. We've been hearing that listening needs to take place in communities throughout the province to build consensus in the communities for the treaty process.

           D. Field: I would say there's probably a fair amount of mistrust that you have to overcome. I think that this process has people quite distressed. I think there's a fair amount of repair work that would have to happen before you have a chance of having real discussion. I'm not sure how you begin the repair, but if there are some first nations people that you're actually speaking to and have good relationships with, I would ask: what do we do to repair the climate that's already been set up just by this promise of the referendum?

[1835] 

           M. Hunter: Dorothy, thank you for your presentation. I want to ask you, since much — not all — of what you've had to say to us, I think, relies on a statement you make on page 2: "There is enough racism running as an undercurrent in this province already," what evidence can you cite to me for that statement?

           D. Field: Yesterday I spoke with a negotiator for the Cowichan tribes, who spoke about going into a restaurant and not being served. She spoke about, as a native, walking into stores and being followed to make sure that she's not stealing anything. She pointed out that she is a lawyer.

           I would say that if you would bring some native people in here and start asking some questions, you would hear more stories than I could begin to tell you. It's not my experience. It is the aboriginal experience that you need to be addressing.

           M. Hunter: I wanted to ask you what you based your facts on. You've answered it. That's fine.

           D. Field: My husband taught on the Chemainus reserve, Shell Beach, for ten years. It's rampant; it's all the time. These kids — the same thing. If they went into MacDonald's, people swarmed — not swarmed around…. Everybody's waiting to see what's going to happen and what these kids are going to do. It's a difficult way to live.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Dorothy, for coming to visit with us this evening.

           The next presentation is from Clark Roberts.

           C. Roberts: Good evening. I'll be as brief as possible.

           My name is Clark Roberts. I'm representing no one except myself, and these are my views. I just thought I'd come forward to present them as clearly as I could.

           I understand that the government is committed to holding a referendum, and I understand that this committee is struck to look at the question. I have drafted a question for the committee to consider. It's a very simple question: do you agree that the provincial and federal governments should negotiate treaties with first nations in accordance with the principles for treaty negotiations set out below? On the back or below that could be the actual basic treaty principles.

           I have taken the statement from the website, which I must say I had some involvement with in drafting initially, and I've added some words for clarity and some assistance. For example, the notion that private property will not be on the table does not make a lot of sense in that you may actually have private property on the table, as long as it's been bought from a willing seller. Really what you're speaking of is expropriation. Making that statement a little bit clearer seems to make sense.

           I've made 15 principles. I've made them very clear. I think they actually are quite enforceable, in the sense that you can point to any provision in the treaty and decide whether or not each of those statements has been breached — so that you can say these work. These are in accordance with our principles.

           My concern is with two of them. Section 8 — what I call section 8 — is that treaty agreements shall be affordable. I think "affordable" is an uncomfortable word. I think that like the word "beauty," it's in the eyes of the beholder. What's affordable to one person is not affordable to another. Just saying it's affordable doesn't make a lot of sense. We think this treaty is affordable. I don't know if that helps. I was trying to think of another word that might make better sense, and I came up with "sustainable" or "achievable" as words that could be replaced in section 8.

[1840] 

           With respect to section 13, that is another area that I have problems with. That's because I believe that each treaty shall be negotiated in accordance with the facts in the situation. I believe that some treaties will be about quite a lot of resources like fish or the right to fish or the right to harvest certain things and not to do with land. Others will be quite heavily involved with land. Treaties near cities will not have a lot of land attached to them, just because all of it's already being used for other purposes. It'll be difficult, until you're through, to know whether in fact you've achieved No. 13, which is that when the treaty process is complete, the total area of land granted to first nations through treaties will be proportional to their population. You won't know till it's finished, and then at the end, if you haven't complied with that, it's too late to go back and change the treaties. I suggest that you put in language that makes it a goal of the treaty process, such as that

[ Page 610 ] 

it's an objective of this treaty process to get to that approximate standard, but not to set that as an iron-clad situation.

           I think that the simplicity of the question makes it quite feasible. I think the most important thing, frankly, is that you have a question that's answered yes or no and that you get your answer. I think if it's presented in the proper way, you can get solid support and get British Columbians behind these treaty principles. I believe that from this referendum process you can empower your negotiators to negotiate fair, binding, lasting agreements based on finality, certainty and equality.

           In closing, I would like to say that I personally am opposed to referenda. I don't believe that referenda make much sense when you're negotiating on the basis of aboriginal rights, just as I don't believe you should hold a referendum on what the contents of freedom of the press or freedom of expression means. Just what people think it means, or what they're prepared to agree it should mean, does not mean that is what the content of an aboriginal right or an aboriginal title is.

           I would prefer that it not occur, but having said that, I know that the party's committed to it. I know that the government is committed to it, and I am prepared to live with it. I am proposing here something that I think is simple. It's clear, and I believe it gets you out of a box, which is: what if you held a referendum and everybody voted no or you didn't get a clear result from your referenda, and you end up not having a negotiating mandate? You'll end up in a quandary. I suggest this may be a way out.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Clark, for your comments and your written presentation. I have a question from Val.

           V. Anderson: Clark, on No. 12 — you have a legal background — "The Criminal Code shall apply equally to all British Columbians."

           C. Roberts: I believe that's one law for all British Columbians drafted another way. Go ahead.

           V. Anderson: When people have laws that aboriginal people going to prison or not going to prison shall be treated differently and that because they're aboriginal, this should be taken into account…. Does that agree with that particular…? I think in the public it probably wouldn't be seen to agree.

           C. Roberts: Well, the Criminal Code allows for the sentencing circles and that type of thing. That means that the sentencing circles would continue to be allowed. The Criminal Code applies now.

           V. Anderson: Would sentencing circles be allowed for non-aboriginal people?

           C. Roberts: I believe they're looking at that right now. There's a police officer that committed a crime in Saskatchewan, and they're looking at allowing a sentencing circle in that situation.

[1845] 

           I'm glad that the language "one law for all British Columbians" is not there, because it seems to mean that there is only one threshold. The fact is, when you drive from Oak Bay into Saanich, you get a different speed limit on the same road. Does that mean that the laws are not applied equally? No. What we're saying is that the laws of general application in the province of British Columbia shall apply to all British Columbians equally. It doesn't mean it's the same law, and it doesn't mean that there can't be variations. One person who is convicted of murder can find themselves facing five years in jail while someone convicted of the same crime can face 15 years because of the circumstances surrounding their conviction. It doesn't mean that the law has changed. It just means that it's being applied in different circumstances. I think that section 12 allows you…. You can't say that the laws of general application in British Columbia shall not apply on certain lands, that the Criminal Code will be replaced by the blank tribal criminal code. What we're saying is that the Criminal Code should apply across the province just as it does to all other Canadians in all other regions.

           I want you to understand, first of all, that I'm using language from the government website, not my own, but I believe this allows the flexibility that continues to exist today.

           J. Les (Chair): Clark, the government of British Columbia has been part of a treaty-making process for eight or nine years now under the comprehensive treaty process. I think there is some level of agreement that the process has not been particularly productive, and that is likely why we find ourselves here trying to find a way to renew the B.C. mandate in that treaty-making process. Have you any observations in terms of why the process to date has been as unsuccessful as it arguably has been?

           C. Roberts: Well, that is a two-beer conversation, Mr. Chair.

           J. Les (Chair): Which I'm happy to engage in.

           C. Roberts: I would say a couple of things. One of them is that when you're a party on the left with a notoriety of financial irresponsibility, I don't believe you can stand behind the treaties that you sign because the party on the right that's in opposition would be very critical no matter what the terms of the treaty are. If you are a party of the centre and the centre right in opposition, a party that supports treaties, I think you have an opportunity to put forward all sorts of creative solutions without the sort of politically destructive atmosphere that could occur. I would point to why it was during Reagan's era that the glasnost period opened up and the Berlin Wall came down, or why Richard Nixon was able to go into China. Imagine if a Democrat had gone to China. There is a certain

[ Page 611 ] 

brilliance in working outside the box. If you say, "This is what we'll do," and do what you say you're going to do, I think you have a real opportunity to sign lasting treaties that will work. There's a brilliance and an outside-the-box solution that I think can work. I'm very hopeful, actually.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you for that. The other aspect that I'd like your comment on…. I guess by undertaking this discussion, as we have been doing over the last several months, we tend almost to take ownership of the entire exercise. We must remember that there are other partners in this exercise of treaty-making, notably the federal government. We could be as resourceful and brilliant as it's possible to be in terms of formulating an approach to the treaty-making process, but our federal partners need to come to that same table. I'm not persuaded that their participation has been as well-motivated as it might be in many cases. I'm not sure that they have come to the table with a lot of insight and new initiative, which I believe are necessary to move this process forward.

[1850] 

           C. Roberts: I was concerned when I tried to draft the language with respect to attempting to put the responsibilities of the federal government in a provincial referendum, although I think it does help to push them along to put in things like the federal government shall maintain the primary constitutional, financial responsibilities of treaties. I really do believe that the province's role here is to provide land and that the federal government has to step up to the plate, because they are responsible for treaties under sections 91 and 92 of the constitution. I think they do have to be held responsible.

           I'm hopeful. I'm only speaking to the provincial political process today. I think we're already on to our second beer, Mr. Chair.

           J. Les (Chair): Anyone else have any questions? Thank you, Clark, for joining us on a Friday evening.

           C. Roberts: My pleasure.

           J. Les (Chair): The next presenter is Helen Drost.

           H. Drost: Before I begin, I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak here tonight. I have ten minutes to put forward my opinion about what question should be posed on a referendum about treaty negotiations. I have submitted to the committee, which I think you're receiving right now, a two-page outline of some pertinent facts regarding the history of the treaty-making process in British Columbia. I also included my feelings about this upcoming referendum.

           I am not here to subject you tonight to a recital of historical wrongs committed by past governments, tempting as it may be. Rather, I will state my opinion based on what I know to be true. I have just reviewed several accounts of the history of B.C. since the early 1800s in order to prepare my submission for you. Sitting here right now in the Legislative Assembly, I can almost hear the echo of all the voices that in the past have resonated against these walls. It seems that despite the passage of time, we are still talking about the same thing.

           Certainly, the tribal nations of B.C. have not changed their opinion about the status of non-native tenure on their land. Native leaders do not support this proposed referendum. They are asking the public to boycott it. First, though, I think it is worth trying to stop it. It is wrong to have the majority vote on minority rights. I am sure there are people here tonight who can explain far better than I the consequences of holding this referendum. I will merely comment that referendums are more often than not useless things. They are expensive. Voting is influenced by propaganda, and half the time the questions posed are ambiguous.

           In my view, it is wrongheaded to think that complex subjects such as the treaty negotiations can be satisfactorily addressed by public response to a few questions. The B.C. public has not always shown respect or compassion for aboriginal rights. However, historical evidence suggests that on the whole, colonists approved and expected the government to negotiate land settlements if only to open the land in question for settlement and development purposes.

           Successive governments in B.C. have failed the public one way or another, and we now find ourselves faced with a bigger debt today than ever before. But it is a debt that really, whether the public likes it or not, we are morally and ethically obligated to pay. Payments can be made both in the form of compensation for land seized without consent and in upholding the right of self-government held by all tribal nations of B.C.

           Not too long ago Stephen Hume wrote a review in the Vancouver Sun on the new Stó:lo atlas, which I highly recommend everyone to read. This atlas documents the cultures of southern coastal first nations before and after colonialism. Hume considers that the publication of this atlas is perhaps one of the most important events to have occurred in B.C.'s history. I agree.

           I also agree with Hume that Gordon Campbell and his party members are following in the footsteps of yesterday's man. We are the people that create tomorrow's world. For our children and theirs, we pave the way. We now have the tools and know-how and enough enlightened people at hand to create a society wherein we coexist not only with sovereign first nations, who could form a dynamic and responsible third level of government, but also with nature on a sustainable basis.

[1855] 

           Aboriginal treaty negotiations and the environment go hand-in-hand. In a symbolic way, the reintroduction of sport hunting on grizzly bear populations in B.C. by the present Liberal government reflects, I believe, their true motivation behind holding a referendum on treaty negotiations. Holding a referendum on treaty negotiations is analogous to holding a gun at the heads of first nations peoples. The Liberal government is hampering

[ Page 612 ] 

the negotiation process by insisting on holding this referendum.

           In order to secure our future in B.C., we must repair and cement a positive relationship with all tribal nations that reside here. Through a treaty-making process, if that is how they want to do it, we also all have to come together to protect and repair the damage that has been inflicted on the diverse ecosystems of B.C. It really is all up to us.

           Canadians are proud of our democratic freedoms and human rights protection. To continue to protect our freedoms, including the right to speak freely in today's climate of heightened security, we must look out for each other and defend the rights of people that do not make up the majority. I want to live in a society I can be proud of. Stop this referendum now. Thank you very much.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Helen. I don't see any questions. Thanks again.

           The next presenter is Darryl Youlden.

           D. Youlden: I don't really have much to present. I've actually got to do a paper on the referendum for my first-year political science class and whether I believe in it or not. I booked a time to come down and ask questions, if that's all right. I know it's not the protocol of the committee. If it's a waste of time, then I can leave. There's no problem if that's an issue.

           J. Les (Chair): We're all ears.

           D. Youlden: I was at a meeting last night at the university, and they were saying about how the referendum…. If it's a one-day election or whatever, it costs them $16.5 million for it. I don't know if that's a lot of money to the government or not. Those issues are just things I'm wondering about personally. As I went over your thing, you say that the referendum will go back to the public if there's ratification and stuff. How would it work — a one-day ballot box? Or do they have a plan on how to have the referendum?

           J. Les (Chair): How do you think it should work?

           D. Youlden: I'm a fisherman. I don't know. I can see how the court system is switching more to video conferencing, so people can go in and do it that way at a station over the weekend. The voter turnout, from what I understand, is not that great anyway. I'm just curious if the committee's thought of any ways of how to do it.

           J. Les (Chair): I'm sure we will be thinking of those things, but we are interested this evening in hearing your ideas.

           D. Youlden: Okay. Well, that was a good one. I don't know. Another thing I was just wondering about is that everyone is comparing it to the States, with their propositions and bills and stuff, saying, "Our referendum is like a proposition in the States," and how they do it on their election day. You tick off different things. The other side is, is this possibly preparing us for succession to the States? Are we preparing for their model of government? I'm just talking, now. I've got spare time on my hands once in awhile.

           So you sit there and go: Okay, is there an alternative reason for the referendum besides the treaty process? Is it to get us prepared more for an American-style government? That's a question.

           J. Les (Chair): Do you think it is?

           D. Youlden: I don't know. That's why you guys are up there. That's sort of a question to you guys. I realize I'm supposed to be coming up with what you guys are saying. I realize that. I was just sort of hoping to get an idea on any of these things. My paper is due next week, you know. I didn't bring my kids or my wife. None of my friends would come down, because I knew I was going to do this.

[1900] 

           J. Les (Chair): I was going to say: "Nice try, Darryl." But our primary objective is to hear from you, what your views are on the proposed referendum. If it helps you get your political science paper done, that's an added bonus. But that's not going to be our primary focus.

           D. Youlden: Somehow I didn't think so, but I had hoped — right?

           Again, has there been any indications on how the referendum would be held for the voters to come out?

           J. Les (Chair): Those will be things that the committee will be discussing over the month ahead. We're interested in hearing from you what your thoughts are as to how that should be done.

           D. Youlden: Like I say, I have commercial fish boats, so I try to stay out of political issues like this. I've been through enough meetings. No, I'm just curious. I actually had never seen this "Principles of Treaty Negotiations." I had most of your paperwork, I thought, from the offices and stuff. It's also my understanding that you guys are setting up a referendum to decide how the province will negotiate. The province, theoretically, can only negotiate on its Crown land. Is that not true? If treaty negotiations are involved in Crown land, all the Crown land is the province's. Is that…?

           J. Les (Chair): That's pretty well correct. There is some federal Crown land here and there, but primarily you're dealing with provincial Crown land.

           D. Youlden: So that's basically why the province could still stay majorly involved in the treaty negotiation? Okay, I figured that. It's pretty obvious, I guess, but lots of times there's side issues. Someone might have had a lot of coffee, and they might want to talk.

           I think that's it. Like I say, I was just sort of curious. I was going referendum, and everyone keeps comparing

[ Page 613 ] 

it to the United States. I was going, okay, it's politicians, nothing offensive. Is there a side issue of preparing us for a United States–style government — which I'm not for or against; I'm just curious? From my understanding there's not too many referendums, and this is sort of a new concept. I don't know if I agree or disagree with it until it happens. If it works out well, I guess it would happen more often. I don't know if it should be on such a critical issue for the first one, but I guess that's also the only way people will show up to vote on it. There we go. I've babbled enough.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Darryl.

           D. Youlden: You're welcome. Hey, you got a break anyway.

           J. Les (Chair): Yeah. Have a nice evening.

           D. Youlden: Cheers.

           J. Les (Chair): The next presenter is Harvey Gifford.

           H. Gifford: Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to come and talk to you people. I think the referendum is a good idea depending on the questions. I'm here today as a citizen of British Columbia. I've felt excluded from the process that led to the Nisga'a final agreement. I still feel that government pays little attention to the views of the average Canadian when dealing with the aboriginal file. I'm also here as a commercial fisherman whose livelihood has been dramatically affected by unfair government policies targeted at aboriginal Canadians.

           I am also here as an individual. I sit on the Delta treaty task force, the Tsawwassen consultation group and the fisheries technical subcommittee to do with the Tsawwassen negotiations. I've been involved with the discussions around the treaties for probably eight or ten years. I've volunteered maybe thousands of hours just to try and get a fair settlement for all Canadians. I'm also here as one of a small group of Delta residents who organized a non-binding plebiscite on the Nisga'a final agreement for the residents of Ladner and Tsawwassen.

[1905] 

           The problems in the existing treaty process. I've been involved with this public consultation for years, and I don't think we're really getting listened to. You talk to the chief provincial and federal negotiators, and I think they have an agenda that they're going by. They don't appear to be really taking to heart what I've had to say or what the other committee members have to say. We get no input whatsoever as to offers on the quanta of land they offer or the numbers of fish or dollars. You discuss around it, but when it comes right to the final agreement or what they present to the bands, they come and tell you what they're presenting. They don't ask you what you think of what they want to present. I think that's wrong. I feel I've wasted a lot of time with the hopes of having some input, but both governments seem to have their own agenda proceeding regardless of the input of the consultation groups.

           The plebiscite that I helped organize was done in February 1999 with the help of Mr. John Savage, a former provincial cabinet minister, who organized a small group of Delta residents to give the residents of Ladner and Tsawwassen a vote on the Nisga'a final agreement. The late Fred Gingell was the MLA for the riding at the time. Our actions stemmed from the refusals of the provincial and federal governments to hold a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty. Although polls conducted by the provincial government indicated support for a referendum that exceeded 70 percent, the province would not consent to a referendum.

           After discussions among a group of local residents, we initiated a referendum with the assistance of John Cummins and the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition. Their involvement was limited to initial discussions and providing financial assistance for all rental fees and advertising. They played no role in voting. In total, some 25 people helped organize the vote, which was held on Saturday, February 13, 1999.

           The question we asked on the plebiscite was: "Do you want your MLA, Fred Gingell, to vote in support of the Nisga'a final agreement as it now stands? Yes or no?" The question was modelled on the question that was asked of the Nisga'a citizens in their referendum on the Nisga'a final agreement, which was: "Do you agree that the Nisga'a nation should accept the Nisga'a final agreement as initialled on August 4, 1998?" Our question was intended to offer the public meaningful input on the Nisga'a treaty by providing them with a simple and direct question that could be answered with a yes or a no.

           The vote was targeted toward the residents in the provincial electoral riding of Delta South. All persons wishing to vote were required to register by providing photo ID, proof of Canadian citizenship, residence in B.C. for six months and 18 years of age or older. Required identification was a driver's licence, B.C. voter identification card and proof of residence in Delta South. We had an advanced poll at two locations on February 6, 1999. On our main voting day, four polling stations were established: east Ladner, two in Tsawwassen and one in the downtown area of Ladner. The stations were open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

           Our announcement of a vote initiated widespread debate in the community. Initial discussion surrounded the futility of our plebiscite because the provincial government said it would ignore the results. After the public gained some confidence that we were serious about the plebiscite and intended on doing it properly, the discussions became focused on the content of the Nisga'a final agreement. There was spirited debate in the local paper and on our local cable television station. A town hall meeting was held to stimulate discussion.

           In the week prior to the vote, the discussion throughout our community was the Nisga'a final agreement and what it would mean if the Nisga'a precedent was applied to Delta. People were really interested in knowing what all was involved with the Nisga'a agreement. A lot of them weren't too aware of

[ Page 614 ] 

what was going on, but through the discussion we had and the papers and the TV, people learned quite a bit about the Nisga'a agreement.

[1910] 

           The results of our plebiscite. We had 3,773 persons who voted in the Nisga'a plebiscite, representing 13 percent of the persons who had cast ballots during the previous provincial election. There were 3,493 persons who voted no and refused to support the Nisga'a final agreement; 232 people voted yes in support of the Nisga'a final agreement; 48 ballots were destroyed. As an indication of the public interest in this vote, as was noted February 22, 1999, in the Vancouver Sun, only 2,662 people showed up to vote in a school board election the following Saturday even though the electoral district for the school board election was twice the size. That would prove there was a lot of interest in a plebiscite, I thought.

           Our main problem with the plebiscite was responding to inquiries about specific aspects of the treaty. Because we organized the plebiscite, many people expected us to know about the content of the treaty, but in order to maintain our neutral position on the treaty, we could not entertain any questions about the treaty. If the plebiscite had been held throughout the lower mainland, through the Rafe Mair Show and other media, it would have been a great source for information about the treaty. Because the plebiscite was only held in south Delta, the Vancouver media only paid attention to the results and did not add discussion about the treaty.

           It was also a considerable criticism of the provincial government for making efforts to sell the Nisga'a treaty to the public rather than simply informing the public in an unbiased manner about the contents. This meant that potential voters had no real source of unbiased research in which they could put their trust.

           In any event, the problems of the plebiscite were greatly overshadowed by the success of having 3,773 citizens vote on the Nisga'a final agreement. The fact that 3,773 people showed up on a Saturday to vote on a non-binding plebiscite organized by a private group of citizens indicates the strong desire of the public to have a voice in treaty negotiations. Throughout the plebiscite process, all the people who assisted us in organizing the plebiscite were surprised by the high level of public interest. The many thanks we received from hundreds of well-wishers were astounding.

           In addition, the increase in discussion about the Nisga'a treaty was entirely a result of giving the public some input into the treaty, even though the provincial government already stated it would ignore the results. The level of discussion was also a significant point of interest. Although the public was interested in the basic issue of cost, the main issue that seemed to drive people to the ballot box was a question of equality for future generations. Citizens wanted answers to questions about aboriginal self-government, taxation and types of special laws.

           I would urge this committee to give the citizens of British Columbia input into the principles of treaty-making through real questions that address the core issues of treaty-making. The future of British Columbia is dependent on the outcome of this plebiscite, and this committee should not shy away from putting the hard questions to the public. You will not be disappointed.

           Being involved in these different consultation groups that I'm in, I wonder what the natives want. Settling these treaties communally, I think, is totally wrong. Being a commercial fisherman, I travel up and down the coast. You go by places like Bella Bella, Klemtu or Metlakatla, these out-of-the-way reserves. I think to myself: "Now, why would anybody want to raise a family in that environment?" There's nothing there for them. There's a bit of fishing, other than that maybe a little bit of tourism, sport fishing or something like that. There's nothing there for those people. If these treaties are settled communally ? they give them the resources, land and stuff ? the average person has nothing. If that person wants to get off that reserve, what is he going to do? He has no property he can mortgage, nothing he could sell. They're stuck there. I think it's totally wrong.

[1915] 

           I would love to see the treaty settled financially — no land or resources. You could afford to pay them a lot of money. I wouldn't hesitate to offer them $500,000 a head. You look at what it's going to cost you in the long run, and that way they would have enough money. They could go out and do what they want. They could buy their property. They could start up some resource-based industries. They could do whatever they want. The average family would have maybe $1 million or $2 million each to do what they wanted with. I don't know. But I can't see giving the resources and all the land away. Anyhow, thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Harvey. You might just want to run those numbers a minute; $500,000 a head is $500 billion in my good math.

           H. Gifford: It's $500 million?

           A Voice: Billion.

           H. Gifford: Billion. Well, we're probably getting close to having spent that much already. What's the yearly…?

           J. Les (Chair): You just doubled the national debt, that's all.

           H. Gifford: Oh well. Maybe we've got to cut back a bit, eh? [Laughter.]

           Just one more thing on this. We had a by-election in Delta. Bill Vander Zalm ran in it. His platform was $200,000 or $225,000 per person. He won the election on the Tsawwassen reserve — only by one vote, but he won it. I think these natives should get a chance, the individual natives, not the chiefs or the national assembly or all this. I think the actual individual native should get an opportunity to say what he wants in treaties and whether they want a financial settlement.

[ Page 615 ] 

           I mean, that vote in Tsawwassen was a prime example. Tsawwassen would prefer cash. I think they should be given the opportunity to say what they want. I don't know. They say they're going to boycott this referendum. Well, there might be some questions on there for them. I think they should be able to say what they want. These chiefs…. I don't know. I don't agree with this communal stuff anyhow.

           J. Les (Chair): Okay. Questions of Harvey?

           D. MacKay: Harvey, I just wanted to comment very briefly on your submission. I think I probably could have written that and changed a few names and locations. Like you, I also got involved in a private citizens' referendum in Smithers. I was quite taken aback at your percentage of people who were opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. It's exactly the same number as the referendum that I conducted in Smithers. We had 1,400 people turn out. It was held in conjunction with the municipal election. Thirteen hundred people voted in the municipal election; 1,400 people voted in the Nisga'a referendum, and 93 percent were opposed to it. So I could have written it. I just wanted to thank you for your presentation.

           J. Les (Chair): Anyone else? Thank you, Harvey.

           The next presenter is Marion Cumming. Is Marion Cumming here? All right, how about Peter DeGreef. Is Peter here? There we are. We'll come back to Marion later if she shows up. Good evening.

           P. DeGreef: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I know it's a long night for you, and a long day. I appreciate the opportunity. I'm not a great public speaker, but I've been asked here by my organization, the Pacific Coast Fishing Vessel Owners Guild, to make a bit of a presentation.

           There are approximately 100 members in our organization. We were organized in 1972. We're independent vessel owners primarily engaged in halibut fishing but also in all other commercial fisheries in B.C. The guild does not support racially segregated commercial fisheries. Settlement in treaty should continue to purchase existing licences, vessels and quotas from willing vendors. In the fishing community this approach is called the industrial solution.

           I guess the question we have for the referendum is: following treaty settlements, should aboriginal Canadians engaged in commercial activities be under the same rules and regulations that govern all other Canadians? So it's quite brief. Anyway, I guess our biggest concern is: after the smoke's all cleared, what are we going to be living with? We intend to be here too, so we'd like to give that direction — that we need a level playing field for all participants. It's basically very simple, I guess.

[1920] 

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Peter. Any questions from the committee? It's certain to go down as one of the briefest presentations.

           P. DeGreef: I can give you a little background. I'm 57. I've been involved in fishing since I was 12 years old. I've owned boats since I was 18. The industry's been good. I do not feel that there's been…. It was basically a colour-blind industry. In the last ten years, since there's been segregated racial fisheries, there's been a lot of friction. It's unfortunate. I believe it happened with the previous federal government, not the existing Liberals but the Conservatives, and it was sort of a last-patch effort of the AFS. It's created a lot of problems.

           Fortunately, in the halibut industry we have quotas. Through the treaty settlements, the federal government has been purchasing them and transferring them. It seems to be working a lot better than having segregated fisheries. I think we all plan on being here. I think it's probably a better approach. We've had good harmony in the past, and I'd like to see that come about again.

           J. Les (Chair): Peter, thank you for coming this evening.

           Is Doris Beaudry here? And Marion Cumming isn't here yet either. We're a little bit ahead of schedule at this point, so why don't we recess for 20 minutes. By that time, hopefully Marion Cumming will be here. She was scheduled for 7:45 p.m. and Doris Beaudry at 8:15 p.m. We will recess until 7:45 p.m.

           The committee recessed from 7:22 p.m. to 7:41 p.m.

               [J. Les in the chair.]

           J. Les (Chair): We are back on track. I understand Marion Cumming is here. Good evening.

           M. Cumming: Good evening.

           J. Les (Chair): You can start whenever you're ready.

           M. Cumming: Well, thank you. I shall.

           I'd like to begin with a qualified apology. I read on Wednesday in the local paper about the hearing today, and I feel very inadequately prepared. On the other hand, I just felt a need to speak out about something I'm very concerned about. The other qualifier is that I've just moved back to B.C. after several years' absence, so you may detect an occasional misstatement. I'm certainly open to criticism and correction.

           I think you all have a one-page summary of what I'd like to address, beginning with the mention that I'd like to oppose the holding of a referendum on the subject of aboriginal land claims in B.C. It's on the grounds that experience has shown that the self-interest of the majority does tend to prevail over minority rights — and not just in B.C.; I've encountered it in many parts of the world.

           Another point would be that a referendum could possibly be opposed in court and not stand up either before or after it was undertaken. On the other hand, if a referendum is held, I would like to say that I feel, along with many others, that the wording — just as we've encountered with the context in Quebec — is

[ Page 616 ] 

extremely important. Over centuries now, the native people have dealt on a nation-to-nation basis. That would mean, presumably, that background to a referendum question should make it clear to voters that there is that traditional nation-to-nation approach and also that the land rights that the native people have been speaking on for a long period of time should be put in the proper context in a referendum question.           

[1945] 

           I'd like to mention that having lived and travelled in Latin America, it first came to me as a student in Mexico that the indigenous people tended to be quite oppressed, that there was a degree of racism and a sense of superiority very much related to skin colour, wealth and education. I just happened to encounter an old friend, Sandy Cowan, with whom I went to Mexico many years ago. She has undoubtedly had a similar impact on her life over the years, through what she also encountered.

           As a heritage artist I've travelled and lived in a number of provinces. I've worked in all the provinces and territories in Canada and lived with Indian and Inuit families, who've been unfailingly hospitable. I feel I've learned so much from them. Again, sometimes they do not speak up for themselves, and there are occasions when others can speak up for them.

           I brought along a few note cards that came about partly as a result of a trip across Canada with a Micmac friend. The cards with the coloured borders are her designs, and the others are mine. Perhaps they'd be of some passing interest. I might mention that she occasionally has some poetry on the back of a card. There's one here that she calls Many Moons. I'll quote briefly from part of it. "My brothers walked in moccasins that grew no moss. My sisters danced a joy that knew no sorrow. Sky father, great mother, bring us tomorrow." In its beautiful simplicity, again, it's a plea for recognition of aboriginal rights. Perhaps I could just pass these around.

           In that section I mentioned that I was appalled at the treatment of indigenous peoples, including their relocation on lands and reserves that do not properly sustain them. I certainly encountered it all over Latin America. In New Brunswick, where I lived for many years, there's a reserve near our old farm that's diabolically long and narrow and does not sustain the native population there. Yet even now you hear echoes of people saying: "Oh well, the area is getting so urbanized. Let's move the Indians somewhere else."

           Then on the west coast here, in moving to B.C. a number of years ago to an old family home, I happened to be talking with a nun who's familiar with B.C. history. She was telling me about how that magnificent Goldstream Park had been native land and was not returned to the native people.

           As I travelled across Canada in 1992 with my Micmac friend, because I had a free pass to parks across the country, we stopped in at a number of national and provincial parks. We were struck by how the native names would just trip off one's tongue, and yet there were no native people there. Time after time we'd encounter sacred sites that had been very precious to the native people. Until recently many of them were not allowed to conduct their traditional ceremonies at these sites, which are certainly very meaningful. We passed through Oka as well. Not a park but a golf course had taken over a sacred burial ground. We all know something of the history of the uprising at Oka.

[1950] 

           I find it quite touching that the native people in general are not asking for the return of traditional lands that are now privately owned. They are looking at Crown lands, generally. In B.C. there is such a huge quantity of land that's tenured to the forestry companies. One would think that rather than renewing the leases, it would be possible to consider much more seriously the termination of leases and looking at land that would be really viable to the native people as a community, which could be quite vibrant.

           I found that partly through spending about three years in Mexico, I was educated in a way I'd never dreamed of about indigenous people. I think we can all open up to new ideas and question what we have been taught in our school years. Often textbooks were handed to us that began with North America being discovered, as though the native people weren't actually here. They were invisible or not recognized as equal and not respected except in a way in which treaties often deceptively took their precious land from them.

           I've been reading a book called Stolen Continents, which addresses the situation from the standpoint of the indigenous people themselves in a number of areas of North America. It doesn't happen to include B.C., but there are echoes of what has happened in one geographical area after another in which indigenous peoples have been very much deprived and, in many cases, have lost their lives, not just their rights.

           Through educating ourselves, I think we would be more open to a compassionate view of our fellow human beings. There are ways of making amends. A friend came to my husband and me in the middle of the uprising at Oka and asked us if we'd heard that native people in New Brunswick were looking for a place for a centre for healing and cultural renewal.

           Because we were thinking about moving to B.C. at that time, we were open to the idea of discussing it with the native people, and that 280 acres with three houses are now in trust for the native people. Over the past ten years they've honoured their commitment to preserve it as a nature preserve, which is something that was dear to the hearts of my husband and me, even though it's not something that one would necessarily attach to their particular yearning, normally. Other people have come to my husband and me and said they thought it was such a wonderful idea that they're thinking of possibly doing it themselves either through their wills or through just individual negotiations with native groups.

[1955] 

           I forgot to look at the time when I began. Perhaps I should end with the comment that came in the mail today that Prime Minister Chrétien passed a resolution in 1994 at his own Liberal Party's annual convention,

[ Page 617 ] 

urging the government to satisfactorily settle indigenous land claims. As we know, that resolution is still hanging unresolved. We know very well that it will take many, many generations to continue negotiations. That's the reason I put that little emblem at the top of the page. There's a half sun there that calls for more enlightenment.

           There are two more cards here. One is of the back hill behind our former home in New Brunswick in springtime when the spring flowers are coming into bloom. It's now in trust for the native people. They call it the sacred lands. There's another card that I did in 1995 at the Legislature here on the eve of the referendum in Quebec. People were flying handmade Quebec flags and singing quite spontaneously. The only instrument was a native drum. The young woman said that after finishing that beautiful display of support for Canadian unity, she was going back to her reserve to pray and to take part in a potlatch for Canadian unity. That beautiful spirit, I would hope, would be part of our deliberations and our thoughtful vision for unity in B.C. and for what fair, just dealings we can have with the native people.

           I understand that there are to be questions, and I would hope I might adequately answer any you might have or any comments you might like me to respond to. I'm not sure whether it includes the audience.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Marion, for your presentation. Do we have any questions from members of the committee?

           V. Anderson: I would like to say thank you for your presentation and for your artistry as well. A comment: you've had a very interesting life in your travels. The fact that you have conveyed such an interest in the aboriginal people and the qualities of their life has come across. I want to say thank you. It reminds us that we get past the dollars and cents to real people themselves.

           M. Cumming: That is so true, and thank you so much. I remember a native friend, who'd been on the streets of Boston, saying to me one time when I was starting to feel a bit hard up myself: "Just be grateful for every loonie that comes in." It helps to remember that. Thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much for coming in this evening, Marion. We enjoyed hearing from you.

           Our next presenters are Kent Glowinski and Ann Behennah.

[2000] 

           K. Glowinski: All right. We'll begin by introducing ourselves. My name is Kent Glowinski, and I'm a UVic law student. I have a bachelor of arts degree in political science from McGill University, and I'm from Prince Rupert, British Columbia.

           A. Behennah: My name's Ann Behennah. I'm a social studies and English teacher at Shawnigan Lake School. I have a political science degree and an education diploma from UVic.

           K. Glowinski: I'd like to thank the hon. members today for giving us the opportunity to come here to address you. I know you've been here all day, and you're probably quite tired at this point, so we'll be brief and to the point.

           I'd just like to begin by saying that we recognize that the government of British Columbia is legally and morally obligated to negotiate land claims. On top of that, we recognize that the government of British Columbia is committed to holding a referendum. We're not here to discuss if there should or should not be a referendum. We recognize there will be one, and we'll work on that premise.

           Before we begin, I'd like to say that there is no conflict in us being here. We don't represent any organization, political party or special interest group. We're here as individual British Columbians who are very concerned about seeing a clear, efficient and substantive treaty negotiation referendum question.

           Basically, we've laid out within the written factum to you what we see as the basic problems with the traditional method of referendums — that is, the yes-no referendum method that's been used in the past. For the purposes of this application of democracy, that's probably not going to be the best use of referendum. I don't think the original, traditional yes-no approach can address an issue so emotional and so controversial.

           What we've suggested instead is a different type of referendum question to put forward. Instead of a single yes-no, we've decided that it would be better to have an affirmative referendum question. This means different policy options that people can choose, so you offer the British Columbian public a choice of option 1 or option 2.

           I'll have Ann continue on about that.

           A. Behennah: We're referring to this process as the affirmative referendum process. In other words, it's replacing the traditional yes-no dichotomy with a substantial choice of two differing options, which we're going to address in a couple of minutes.

           There are a few reasons why this is, in our opinion, an excellent idea. Normally referendums can result in what turns into a policy vacuum — a sort of downspin vacuum where there's really no solution at the end of it, depending on which way the referendum goes.

           I've been following native land claim treaties for a long time now, ever since I became politically interested in the whole process about ten or 11 years ago when I first started my poli-sci degree. I remember actually talking to a couple of Liberal caucus researchers who said at the time: "If we don't start to get land claims settled now, it's going to be economically devastating for the province." I remember doing research looking back at the Vander Zalm government and just the endless process that never actually seems to be resolved.

           What we're looking at here is something that actually has a concrete ending. There's actually an end

[ Page 618 ] 

point in sight, which would be beneficial not only for the B.C. economy but also, I think, for the whole climate of investment. We think that it's a positive and a superior method, this whole affirmative referendum question method.

           How it's going to work is as follows. We'd provide British Columbians with an actual choice of process. Instead of just being yes or no to land claims, or something along those lines — which I think is the basic direction in which this process may be heading — it's actually giving them a policy option in how they'd like to actually see the entire situation addressed.

           Kent is now going to outline the actual referendum question: the efficiency model versus the participatory model.

           K. Glowinski: Just to reiterate what Ann was saying, when you have a yes-no question, if someone answers no to a referendum question, it leaves a public policy void. It means that what we're left with is no policy at all. When we're offering someone an affirmative referendum question method, it means that you choose A or B and at the end there's 50 percent support for a substantive, real choice. People can't say, "Oh, there's no policy in place," because there is one.

[2005] 

           Now, there are two models under this affirmative referendum method that we're outlining. One is the efficiency model, and one is called participatory model. The efficiency model is simply a licence for the cabinet and government to make decisions on behalf of all British Columbians. This is a republican style of government. This means direct representative government. It means that cabinet, civil servants and the first nations are doing the tripartite negotiations. It's very much like it is now. It means that there will be backroom negotiations. There will be closed-door meetings. It means it's going to be a very, very efficient process, because it is done by those who are trained in the legal aspects of treaty negotiations. It is done by senior civil servants. As I said, that's a very efficient model, but it's not the most democratic model. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate model to have British Columbians possibly choose.

           The second model is the participatory method. This one basically stresses public consultation at all stages of negotiation and constant consultation with parties who will possibly by affected by the negotiation in question. This means that the government of British Columbia and civil servants don't have a direct licence to go out and say, "Okay, we're willing to give away Crown land, resources and Crown assets," without first doing consultations. This means it's a much more democratic model, but because it is more democratic and has many more public consultations to it, it's a bit more inefficient. It probably would be a longer process.

           I just wanted to point out quickly, before we move on to Ann again, that we're not supporting anything substantive here. We're not for or against either the efficiency model or the participatory model. We don't represent a first nations group or a government. We're just saying that these are the options. In our factum that we've presented to you, we've laid out the pros and cons of both sides. Nonetheless, there are two possible questions that can be posed.

           A. Behennah: Part of the premise behind this is allowing individuals to really consider questions that are based on choosing a process. It's aimed towards a reasonable individual with a reasonable amount of knowledge of the issues. Obviously it's broad in spectrum, but there's a whole general sense of inclusiveness and reason to the actual proposal.

           Basing these two models, the efficiency and the participatory model, around two of your basic ideologies in B.C. — people that want to get on with it regardless of drawing everyone in, without necessarily having to ask every single stakeholder but just moving along the process…. That's one option for those who would choose it. Then the other option is, as Kent has outlined in so much detail, really expanding it and having what is, in essence, the classic democratic model. Either way, we're allowing the public to get on board the policy bus with a clear motive and a clear end in sight that something will be done, and they're actually stakeholders in it.

           That summarizes what I'd like to say on it. I'm going to allow Kent a couple of minutes to wrap up.

           K. Glowinski: If you turn to page 5 of the factum we have given to you, it actually outlines two possible questions that we've put together. One is based on the efficiency model, which means the delegated representation powers. It means the government acting on behalf of people, and the second option being actual direct democratic involvement by people, a grass-roots sort of involvement in the process.

           As we were saying, we've based the questions around two very broad and general ideologies in B.C.: those who believe in having an executive-style treaty negotiation process and those who believe in a more grass-roots process. Of course, there's going to be complaints that everyone has not been involved in this. The entire essence of a referendum question is that they are general and have to be somewhat vague. They have to be able to encompass, and they have to almost present a dichotomy. That is the essence of referenda.

           I'd like to thank you for your time. As I said, I know it's very late, and I hope we haven't taken up too much of your time. Thank you again. If you have any questions, we're open to your questions.

[2010] 

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you both. I think we've probably heard somewhere in the order of 400 presentations, both verbally and received in written form. Here we are late on a Friday evening, and you've come up with a new twist. Wouldn't you know it? There should be some kudos to you there.

           Questions from committee members, first of all. I suspect there might be a bit of interest here.

           V. Anderson: Have you any examples where one or the other or both of these have been used in some

[ Page 619 ] 

discussion or place where they have been part of a process?

           A. Behennah: I think part of the Australian model accomplishes some of these in their various referenda.

           K. Glowinski: Just to add to this, I think what's very important to note is that with the yes-no referendum, the traditional questions…. We've laid out some problems. If you turn to page 2 of our factum, the problems with a direct yes-no referendum is that they allow framers to easily influence the result through wording of the question. We talk about how Canadians are quite apt — our history has shown this in referenda — to say no to things. Quebec's secession referenda have shown this; Charlottetown has shown this. This is just the way Canadians are. It's very easy to say no to things. It's easy to reject.

           Also, as we said, a majority no vote leaves a public policy void. If we've done all this work to put a referendum together and then a majority votes no, where does that leave us? Do we have another referendum? Do we have to completely start the policy process all over again? As well, yes and no create very strong adversarial sentiments. That means it's a very much us-versus-them system.

           In Quebec we saw what happened. I don't think we want that. Instead, when you have an affirmative referendum question method, it allows people to say yes. They're voting for something. You vote for A or for B, but never against one. That's the very subtle yet strong nuance which is going through this process here. It's a very positive, affirmative process versus a negative one.

           M. Hunter: Man, I wish I weren't feeling quite so tired, because you're right. It's been a long two days actually, and I have to acknowledge that my brain power is not up to its maximum.

           I think I understand your approach, and I appreciate that. I'm looking at the questions you've offered to us and trying to figure out in my own mind. Maybe you can help me. The questions you have asked are general with respect to process — okay? Either give me a short leash or give me a long one, if I can paraphrase it in that way.

           Does this approach work, in your opinions, if we start to think of the scope of the questions as I think we are trying to scope them — i.e., principles that would apply within a process rather than the process itself? Can we back up one step and ask, in your experience and with your knowledge of these either/or questions that refer to principles as opposed to processes…? I think that's what you've covered in your questions.

           A. Behennah: In terms of principles, it just seems from our perspective that in the public's mind there will be a referendum at some point. I mean, it was made very clear during the last provincial election that this is very much the intention of the government. I think it seems to be this whole sort of public-will aspect that something is accomplished. Yes, this deals a lot with process, but the process is very important. When you think about what happened right after Charlottetown, after pretty much Canadians from all over Canada picked apart an omnibus document, what were we left with? We were left with the same old questions at the end of it. We still have the same will. We'll always have that same will, that same sort of: "Yes, let's aim towards doing something at some point, hopefully soon." But afterwards, what had to happen? There had to be a year of policy quagmire followed by a crushing defeat of one government party. This is the sort of process which we think is positive and accepts an existing will.

           K. Glowinski: If I can add on to that, when we talk about principles, we made a direct reference in the factum to using principles and words that are loaded yet empty at the same time — things like "just" and "harmonious." What are some of the other ones?

           J. Les (Chair): Equitable.

[2015] 

           K. Glowinski: Equitable. What do those things mean, and quite frankly, what is the Supreme Court of Canada going to say about them? Undoubtedly, if we start using these loaded and empty words — because this is what they are…. They're a contradiction. They mean everything and nothing at the same time.

           I think we have to avoid making these principled statements and instead say that the policy itself has to speak for principles. As Ann was saying, we all believe in a fair, equitable and harmonious negotiation process. We all want that. The point is: what's the process? This is what we can't agree upon. This is the sticking point that we have to move forward on. The principles are inherent in there, and I think that everyone, whether they be on one side or the other, the pro- or anti-referendum side, believes that there are principles there. I think we probably have a basic belief in the principles, but the process is very much the important part here.

           M. Hunter: Can I follow up just a little bit, John?

           J. Les (Chair): Sure.

           M. Hunter: Maybe I'll ask a question just a little bit differently because I'm aware of your suggestion that we avoid these empty words. Let's take one of the principles that's out there right now: private property is not on the table. If one were to take your models and ask the either-or question around whether you believe private property should be on the table — I don't know; I'm not quite sure what the alternative would be — does that kind of approach to that kind of question remove, in your minds, some of the adversarial problems, the problems you've identified with the yes-no on that same question?

           K. Glowinski: I'll respond to this one. Within the questions themselves — the concept of not putting private

[ Page 620 ] 

property rights on the table — within questions (a) and (b)…. Of course, under the efficiency model, which is choice (a), this gives executive power to government to deal with these things. You as government don't want to straitjacket yourselves. You do have appropriation powers.

           Now, I'm not saying that these are good or bad. Like I said, I'm not here to make value statements. The point is that under an executive model, you do have that power to take that. You're a B.C. Liberal government, though. I don't think you'd do that. I'm saying this based on the New Era document and from the principles behind the party.

           In terms of the participatory side, people who are reading that understand — and it's made quite clear in that question — that before a government can start negotiating lands, Crown assets and resources, they have to talk to the parties involved. You have a choice there. The choice is in the words themselves. You can never make a referendum question so specific and detailed that it's going to cover every situation. When you're in government you can't straitjacket yourselves. You have to leave that room there.

           Just like when you make a bill, you talk about the vague, more general sense, and then you make the regulations after. It's going to be the same idea here. We have to work on a framework process and from there create the details and the infrastructure that follow.

           M. Hunter: Thank you.

           J. Les (Chair): Just maybe a little further clarification, then. You're describing a scenario here that gives guidance to the process as opposed to giving guidance to the contents or the result of the process.

           K. Glowinski: The result of the process and the substance, of course, is what the government and the other parties involved in the negotiation make of it. The point is that by having choices, by a populist choosing a choice, this is going to literally put limits on what a government can do. For example, let's say someone chooses (b) and then the government says: "Oh, actually, we're not going to have any of those public consultation things." Well, clearly you've just gone against the will of the people and a referendum.

           Like I said, we cannot talk about every eventuality here before it happens. They're going to come up. If we have this process framework in place, it will guide us and will guide the content as we go along, because we have a process and a framework in place.

           J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you both for an interesting presentation. As I said earlier, this is a wrinkle that had not yet been presented to us, so it was worth our while to stay here until at least twenty after eight on a Friday evening.

           K. Glowinski: Well, thank you very much. If you have any other questions, our contact information is on the document. Please feel free to contact us.

           J. Les (Chair): We certainly will.

           A. Behennah: Thank you very much.

[2020] 

           J. Les (Chair): The next presenter is Doris Beaudry. It looks like Doris Beaudry is not here.

           Not seeing Doris Beaudry here, Richard Price?

           R. Price: My name is Richard Price. I'm pleased to be here. I appreciate this opportunity to present a few thoughts to this committee.

           I thought I would begin by perhaps introducing myself briefly. I've been involved for the past number of years doing research on the B.C. treaty process. In the course of that research I've had the opportunity to interview senior officials from British Columbia, from Canada and from first nations, especially the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council and the Nisga'a tribal council. In addition, for the last three years I've had the opportunity to facilitate negotiation strategies workshops through the University of Victoria. In those workshops we've had senior negotiators from the three major parties plus the Treaty Commission present to some of us the strategies and some of their insights on the process. In the spring of 2000 I presented a paper to the B.C. Treaty Commission conference on New Zealand's experience with interim treaty settlements and arrangements.

           Although I worked at the University of Alberta from the mid-eighties till 1998, when I took an early retirement, I feel I'm quite familiar with the B.C. treaty process and have some ideas to present to you for your consideration. I have my paper divided into two parts. The first part deals with democratic process, Canadian citizenship and also community relationships. In the second part I present a few suggestions for questions for the referendum.

           Roger Wilkins, a professor of history at George Mason University, made the comment on television recently that after September 11 he felt that democratic institutions in the United States are very fragile and require continual nurturing. Keeping this comment in mind, I wanted to draw your attention to a book written by Robert Dahl called Democracy and Its Critics. In it, Dahl sets out five criteria for a democratic process. These criteria would enable citizens in a democracy to have effective control over the democratic institutions. These five criteria are effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda and inclusion of all adult members.

           While all of these criteria would apply to the current exercise of the proposed referendum, I think of particular interest is enlightened understanding. I'll quote from Dahl here: "In order to express his or her preferences accurately, each citizen ought to have adequate and equal opportunities for discovering and validating, in the time permitted by the need for a decision, what his or her preferences are on the matter to be decided." This point underlines the fundamental importance of public education, which was stressed as the

[ Page 621 ] 

last three principles of the original 19 from the '91 task force and by many interveners at your hearings.

[2025] 

           It seems to me that a question like, "Are you in favour of aboriginal self-government if it is a third level of government?" could well be very difficult for many citizens to understand. Therefore, the development of public education to meet the criteria of enlightened understanding would be tough, although certainly not impossible. In any event, I guess what I'm advocating is that a solid public education and information process should accompany a referendum in the days and months leading up to the referendum day.

           I want to take you to the theme of Canadian citizenship. Many of you will be aware of Alan Cairns, a political scientist from the University of British Columbia, a very eminent person who has written the book Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State. Cairns suggests that it's important for all of us to see aboriginal peoples as citizens in a broader Canadian democracy in light of the "we versus them" mentality that often seems to develop in current land claims negotiation elsewhere in Canada and also in British Columbia.

           Cairns then focuses on federal and provincial governments and the situation here in B.C. He urges that federal and provincial governments need to keep in the forefront of their minds that they are negotiating with their own citizens, who are members of the federal and provincial communities as well as members of aboriginal nations. Governments, and here he means both the federal and provincial governments, need to remember that they are not non-aboriginal governments. Thus, although British Columbia states that it represents all citizens at the table, the tenor of its policy documents, no doubt influenced by the adversarial nature of the negotiation process, suggests that its major task is to represent non-aboriginal British Columbians.

           For Cairns, a more helpful or beneficial perspective is for us to recognize that we all have a common citizenship as Canadians and that all of us, including aboriginals, have multiple civic identities. We relate at times to the federal government, to the provincial government and to our local or regional governing entities. Similarly, he notes that aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples are interdependent in terms of issues like economy and intermarriage.

           Finally, he stresses the strategic importance of this citizenship theme in that inevitably there is a need for a flow of resources from Canadian people through their governments to aboriginal nations. It's more likely to be met if we are all seen to belong to a common citizenship in Canada.

           Thus, where this leads me is that the questions I would suggest for the referendum need to be framed in a way that is cognizant of our common Canadian citizenship. Therefore, I would argue that the thrust of the questions should be inclusive rather than foster a kind of we-them approach of positional bargaining.

           I now want to move into the whole issue of community-to-community relationships. The B.C. treaty process, like our democracy, is also a fragile institution. While it is evolving and improving incrementally over time, it also requires nurturing and support. In this regard, I've had an opportunity to review some of the testimony in your hearings. I've found, for example, Miles Richardson's testimony on October 18 to be very instructive and illuminating. In relation to the Treaty Commission's recommendation of regional visioning forums, Richardson emphasized the following questions for communities to discuss: what kind of neighbours do we really want to be? What kinds of things do we want to share in the future? In relation to treaty outcomes and the incremental approach to building relationships between communities, Richardson stressed that at the end of the day you have a piece of paper that's a treaty articulating legal parameters of a new relationship, but what's really important is the actual relationships you've developed on the ground between people, between communities. What kind of neighbours we are is what's really important. That's where we're building.

           Similarly, Don Bell, chair of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee, who spoke to your committee on the same day, also raised very similar themes. He stressed common objectives between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities: healthy populations, vibrant economic systems, sustainable living environments. At the same time he stressed the primary need of both communities for ongoing and strong relationships. One of his insights came from a community forum that was held last September. Here I quote from Don Bell: "We acknowledged that this was going to be the beginning of a long journey together as neighbours and that to make objective decisions about our collective future, we first need a strong relationship."

[2030] 

           I find these perspectives that were brought to your committee encouraging, and I think they can be of real assistance to you in framing a set of questions which are cognizant of the type of society we're trying to build in British Columbia. In this regard I formulated a few questions which I hope will be conducive to a productive and harmonious future for all of us.

           I move now into the last part of my presentation. These are suggestions for what I've called inclusive referendum questions. I believe that if the questions are asked along the following lines, the referendum will have a better chance of being a unifying rather than a divisive force in British Columbia society.

           The first question: in treaty negotiations in British Columbia, are you in favour of treaty outcomes contributing to a more equal society whereby the standards of living of aboriginal Canadians and their communities would be comparable to the communities of their neighbours? Second: would you like to have treaties contribute to improved relationships between communities of first nations and nearby municipalities in British Columbia? And third: do you believe that interim agreements and treaties should be regarded as building blocks towards the kind of society we are trying to establish for our children and our grandchildren? 

[ Page 622 ] 

           Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity. I appreciate you listening to me at such a late hour in the day. I can imagine you're all very tired, but I do appreciate your attentiveness. I'm glad to answer any questions you might have about what I've presented.

           J. Les (Chair): Don't worry about us being tired. We appreciate you coming in at this hour to help us with our work.

           Let me take perhaps a bit of a devil's advocate position. Can you imagine anyone voting no to your questions?

           R. Price: Yes, I can. I would say that the first question, for some people, would be more controversial than perhaps the second or third. I think the first question is more controversial in the sense that if you unpack the question, really what I'm saying is that treaties, through a reallocation of land and resources — and probably jurisdiction and so on, but especially land and resources…. That's a controversial issue in British Columbia. I would expect that some people would say: "No, I don't think the treaties should contribute to that." I guess that's the way I would see it.

           I would hope that people would see these as positive, but I can see that some people would have some trouble with that. People who have perhaps earned a living and had a tough time making a living, in my view, perhaps wouldn't really have a full appreciation of the history of the last century and a half in British Columbia and what's happened and would resent having to share some of society's scarce resources with aboriginal people. I don't know if others feel that way, but I can foresee that that would be a more controversial question than perhaps the other two.

           G. Trumper: Thank you for your presentation. You've obviously had some experience with the Nisga'a and the Nuu-chah-nulth. I'm certainly very familiar with the Nuu-chah-nulth. Do you think that these three questions that you've put before us would get the aboriginal community participating?

           R. Price: Well, if I think of those two communities that we were just talking about, I would be…. I guess you get partly into the politics of it. As I understand it, some of the First Nations Summit are recommending a boycott of the process.

           G. Trumper: But they have made presentations, including the Nuu-chah-nulth.

[2035] 

           R. Price: That's good. I'm encouraged by that. I wasn't aware of that. Both of these groups, the Nisga'a and Nuu-chah-nulth, are, I would say…. Certainly the Nisga'a. I'm not so certain about the Nuu-chah-nulth, because they may be more inclined to move in the direction of the First Nations Summit, which is boycotting it. They're part of the First Nations Summit. I would hope that all British Columbians would participate in the actual vote in the referendum.

           I don't know. I think that's important. I'm sorry, I can't really answer your question any better than that, because I haven't really discussed this with them recently. I would hope that both Nuu-chah-nulth and Nisga'a people would participate, and I would hope that all first nations individuals would participate. I have a hunch that many of them will just boycott it. That seems to be their public position at the moment. When we get closer and see what the actual questions are, perhaps they would take a new attitude towards it.

           I think everyone is a little bit nervous about it — everyone that I've talked to in the aboriginal community. They're kind of expecting the worst. This is my impression.

           G. Trumper: Thank you.

           R. Price: I'm pleased that some of them are participating in your hearings.

           V. Anderson: One of the things I like about this is that it states quite clearly that we're doing treaty negotiations and then deals with outcomes. That's our focus that we've taken as a government: to be concerned about outcomes rather than inputs. It follows up two principles that we have in mind without really saying so.

           I think you were here for the previous presentation of the young couple, which was on process.

           R. Price: Unfortunately, I kind of missed half of it and just came in towards the end, so I didn't really catch the drift of it. I'm sorry.

           V. Anderson: Their suggestion was that we have two questions on process. In essence, one is that the process would be done by government, the bureaucracies, and the people who would just go and do it on behalf of the people. It would be kind of a closed-door process.

           The other was that it would be an open process and would involve consultation and interaction. It ran through my mind whether it's possible to combine those two — in that this is what we would like, and their reworded suggestion is how we would like it done — and whether the two could go together, in essence, to say that these are the outcomes we're looking for. This is how we would look forward to it being done. Would those two things go together in your mind?

           R. Price: As you've outlined these two alternatives, my own sense is that the second alternative, as I understood it, is a more broad-based, participatory referendum the way we normally understand it. That's what I assumed you folks were about, and that's the type of question that would come forward.

           I must confess I don't really follow the other process. I think that within government, there are possibilities of government's developing internal policy papers

[ Page 623 ] 

that they can discuss and then send round to hearings. I would see that as a different process than a referendum.

           Unfortunately, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, because I didn't really hear their presentation. I regret I can't answer your question better than I have.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Richard, for making your presentation this evening. We appreciate it.

           Is Doris Beaudry here? No. Margaret Smart?

           M. Smart: I appreciate it's getting late for you, too, and that this has been a long day. This won't be long.

           I'm speaking to you as an individual, but as a person who is a member of Aboriginal Neighbours of the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia and also a volunteer at the Royal British Columbia Museum. As a volunteer, I've been involved with school programs and had the privilege of sharing the culture with children who come to the museum as part of groups. That is so worthwhile because of the diversity and richness of the culture of the first peoples.

[2040] 

As a member of Aboriginal Neighbours of the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia, we've been promoting closer relationships and understanding between people in the churches and the first nations people. I've had the opportunity to be part of three listening circles in Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo, in which survivors of residential schools have spoken. That has been very moving and very important in understanding what has happened to first nations people over the last century and longer, until quite recently, until the 1970s and 1980s. Still so many young people…. It's such an intergenerational problem. It affects the lives and the families so much — what those policies have done.

           One of the follow-up ones in Victoria was a young fellow who was going to Camosun. He said that of the moneys that go — you may need to check this out — to first nations people, only 2 percent goes to economic development, a very small amount. They spoke about the need to strengthen families and of the problems that there are.

           I would like to express my concerns with the treaty process. The right way to proceed is not a referendum, in my view, but to improve the treaty process and to educate people in first nations rights. Working out options and solutions by all three parties is necessary. Negotiations have been going on for more than seven years based on 19 principles that have been agreed to by all parties. One of my concerns is that there's a great danger of creating divisiveness, killing the treaty process and preventing economic growth.

           As historian Michael Ignatieff has said, the northwest coast of North America had and has one of the greatest civilizations in the world. The people of B.C. simply have to acknowledge that this aboriginal civilization is part of their heritage. It means preserving it as a living culture and not as it's been. It's been evolving. There is simply no political alternative to doing justice to the claims.

           I agree that a referendum violates very basic concepts of justice that aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike believe in. Moral and legal rights of one group should not be determined by a majority. Even listening to some of the points that have been made tonight, I can see that just a yes-no, that to set back the treaty process….

           I've been living in British Columbia since 1964. I'm originally from Quebec. I lived on the North Shore of Vancouver and around the Vancouver area before moving to Victoria, often close to small reserves, as it is in the Vancouver area. I realize how very small those are and what a very small economic base there is. I've seen such diversity in that across British Columbia, going to the interior and various places. I'm just amazed at the vitality of the first nations people and their belief that they will eventually achieve justice and be able to have some economic base to have stronger families and social systems.

           I want to thank you for this opportunity.

[2045] 

           V. Anderson: Thank you, Margaret. You mentioned the residential schools. It reminded me that we've had that raised fairly often by aboriginal people, old and young, who have come — the unsettling impact it has had upon their whole family life and their community life. It dawns on me that we might not be taking into account enough the fragile nature of the new developments that aboriginal communities are trying to undertake at the moment when we're thinking about the economic and other parts of it, although we must do that. We maybe need to be more gentle in what we do than we might be otherwise, say, in normal business practice. Any comment?

           M. Smart: I think I understand what you're saying. You're referring to the fragility because of those experiences and their intergenerational nature. It may take quite some time for those families and individuals to deal with that because of the intergenerational effects of it.

           V. Anderson: Yes.

           M. Smart: It's very complex, I believe. On one hand, when we think about the culture, I think there's a tremendous vitality in the culture that you see being expressed through things that take place at the museum, for example, and other places. Then there are also a lot of social problems that are very difficult and that would be very difficult for any of us to deal with. I may not have answered your question.

           V. Anderson: Okay. Yup.

           J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Margaret, for sharing with us this evening.

           I assume that Doris Beaudry has not arrived. She was scheduled to appear about a half-hour ago, so I

[ Page 624 ] 

will assume by her not being here that she's not going to be here this evening. I will recess at this point, but I first of all want to make a few comments, however.

           This brings to a close the public consultation process for the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs as it works toward delivering on its mandate to prepare a report by November 30 on the questions that should be submitted to the public of B.C. in a one-time referendum. It has been a relatively arduous process, I think, over these last five weeks.

           I believe we have visited 15 communities. Between verbal and written submissions, I think we have some 400 of those, which will mean that we have a lot of work to do in the weeks ahead to put it all together in a way that does justice to all of the various submissions that have been made.

           Indeed, we've heard many thoughtful and insightful submissions from many people ranging from high school students to the elderly and everyone in between, and from aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike.

           I believe it has been a very useful process. I reflected just the other day that although we talk about how we've been in the treaty-making process for quite a number of years now in British Columbia, I believe I'm accurate in saying that this is the first time there has actually been any kind of consultative process where a committee of government has actually gone out and listened to and interacted with the public of British Columbia.

           Hopefully, it will not be the last time that happens. I wouldn't be so optimistic as to suggest that the treaty-making process will be finished next year. I think this is going to be a process that's going to take some time. Hopefully, we will be able to make some progress in the nearer future as opposed to the longer-term future.

           Before I finish, I'd like to thank the committee members for their stamina and their forbearance. It's been a busy time, and of course, this isn't the only thing that each of us is involved in. We all have various other assignments as well.

           I'd like to thank Tamara Little for the work she has done so far and the work that she will be doing with us in the next few weeks; Audrey Chan in the Clerk's office, who has crunched through a lot of the written submissions and has given us the summaries we've all been handed in the last couple of weeks; and the Hansard staff. I'm not sure how they do it, but they manage to take down every word that anybody says. That's still a bit of a mysterious process to me, but I've yet to find any errors in anything I've said, and that's quite remarkable. At every meeting that we've been to around the province, they of course need time to set up their very complicated equipment, and there have been absolutely no glitches whatsoever.

           A special pat on the back to the lady on my left, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who is our major coordinator and senior staff from the Clerk's department. It's been an absolutely seamless process these last five weeks. I've never seen anyone pull it all together with nary a sign of being flustered yet with lots of reasons to be sometimes. Thank you, Kate, for your assistance.

           With that, we will adjourn. Good night.

           The committee adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Aboriginal Affairs Committee Home Page ]

Copyright © 2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada