AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Friday, November 19, 1999

• 1317

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Order. Welcome, everyone. My name is Sue Barnes. I'm the member of Parliament for London West and I chair the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee. I would like to welcome the audience and all of the people who will be providing testimony this afternoon.

Before we start, I would like the members of Parliament around the table to introduce themselves, starting with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Hello. My name is Paul Forseth. I represent the riding called New Westminister—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): I'm Val Meredith. I represent South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Hi, everybody. My name is Libby Davies. I represent Vancouver East, and I'm here on behalf of the NDP.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): My name is Gerald Keddy. I'm the member of Parliament for South Shore, Nova Scotia. I'm the Progressive Conservative critic for Indian affairs and northern development and I'm our critic for natural resources.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I'm John O'Reilly from the beautiful riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock in central Ontario, the home of 450 dairy farms.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'm John Finlay. I'm the member of Parliament for Oxford riding, which, whether we have 450 or 950, is the premier dairy county of Canada. I'm the vice-chair of this committee. Thank you.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): My name is Nancy Karetak-Lindell. I'm the member of Parliament for Nunavut, which is Canada's newest territory, in the eastern Arctic.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): My name is David Iftody. I'm the member of Parliament for Provencher in southern Manitoba. I'm also the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The Chair: Also in the room listening to these hearings is a B.C. senator, Senator St. Germain.

I'm glad you're here, Senator.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Paul Forseth: I have a point of order. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I would like to advise the people in the audience that this is not a town hall meeting. This is a function of Parliament.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Paul Forseth: Cell phones should be turned off. There should be no speaking out from the audience. That should be outside the doors. It was very hard for us to get the committee to be here, and we want the committee to function and we want to show them a fine British Columbia welcome.

• 1320

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: Do we, the people of British Columbia, have a say?

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Order, order!

A voice: This meeting is a farce and a travesty!

Voices: Hear, hear!

A voice: We don't want our province divided.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Order, order! Please take your seats and then you will see democracy in action. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Forseth. I think that was most appropriate coming from a Reform Party member of B.C. I hope the audience respects your wishes, as well as mine, as the chair. We believe these hearings are very important.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We have gathered people together to give us testimony, so we will start by welcoming our witnesses today. We have from B.C. Hydro & Power Authority the chair, Brian Smith. Welcome.

Voices: Boo!

The Chair: We have the president of Stothert Group Inc. and a member of the Vancouver Board of Trade, Winston Stothert. He's here as an individual. The chair of the Laurier Institute, Milton Wong, is also joining us today. And the chairman of the board of Canadian National Railway, David McLean, is joining us. Originally it was scheduled for Mr. Paul Tellier, and I'm very pleased that Mr. McLean could replace him and join us here today. We're grateful that he has come to give his testimony before this committee.

The order of the day is Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement. Up until 3:15 this afternoon, you will all be invited to give opening statements of approximately ten minutes each, and then we will go into five-minute rounds of questioning by the committee members in rotation. The time is yours.

Perhaps we can start with Mr. Smith. Please go ahead when you're ready.

Mr. Brian Smith (Chair, B.C. Hydro & Power Authority): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I want to thank the committee for its invitation to come here today and speak about the Nisga'a agreement.

My background is that when I was in provincial government, I was a minister in the Social Credit government, and I was in charge of aboriginal relations in the early 1980s. I attended, I guess, every aboriginal-government conference throughout the 1980s as a minister from British Columbia.

When I left politics, I went to CN Rail and was extremely disturbed by the relationship the railway then had with the bands. It was not a very good relationship. It was mostly a relationship that when things went wrong, we went to court and hired lawyers. We lost $1 million a day when our northern line was closed at Kitwanga, as it often was. It was very, very bad business. We had lawyers' solutions to these things, and I felt that was not the way to go.

So, not as part of my duties at CN, but as a sideline, I started a series of business-native meetings. My view was that if the treaty process, which was just starting then in 1993, was ever going to work, first a lot of goodwill and trust had to be built up in the province. The more business arrangements that were in place with bands, rather than waiting for treaties, which will come, but are going to take a long time....

I was a bit worried about the treaty process. I felt it was going to be too attenuated, too bureaucratic, with too many lawyers involved, and too many years would go by before anything would be completed.

A voice: With too many bogus hearings.

• 1325

Mr. Brian Smith: What really has to happen is there have to be experiences on the ground of business deals between first nations and business.

So it was with that background that when I went to B.C. Hydro, I found to my surprise and pleasure that B.C. Hydro already had a very elaborate first nations department of people who manage the relationships Hydro has with over 120 bands. Our transmission lines run through and across these bands all over the province. We have very complex but generally very good relationships with these bands. In many, many cases, we're involved in our smaller version of treaty negotiations with these bands, and we have extensive meetings.

I do support the treaty process. The treaty process needs cleaning up and streamlining, but I support it.

A voice: Does that mean hurried through?

Mr. Brian Smith: Also, the treaty process needs to have transparency and needs to have a lot of involvement of the local community. Therefore the Nisga'a treaty, which I've followed but not been directly involved in, is somewhat unique, because it, as you know, predates the B.C. treaty process. These negotiations have been going on for 15 or 20 years. The province joined the table in the early 1990s.

A voice: You're going to need a real job after the election then.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: I would just ask for courtesy, common courtesy, from the audience, please.

A voice: Give us a vote!

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Smith, if you'd like to put your headphones on, you can hear better.

A voice: We want to hear from the premier.

The Chair: Go ahead, please, and I will give back the time.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: The Nisga'a treaty represents many, many years of work and consultation. It has had a lot of consultation in the region. There has been quite a lot of participation up there. I've made at least two speaking tours through Terrace, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert, one quite recently, and spoken to service clubs and chambers of commerce, and I've found a reasonably good acceptance of this treaty.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: What about the people's say?

The Chair: Order.

Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Brian Smith: Whatever these yahoos behind me want to say in an unparliamentary way, I still believe they do not represent—

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: You don't represent the people.

The Chair: I have no intention of clearing this room, because if I had to clear this room, I would have to clear the media out. If you have no consideration for the people at this table.... Order! Have some consideration for the taxpayers of Canada—

Voices: Oh, oh! Boo!

A voice: We are the taxpayers!

The Chair: —who want to know about these hearings.

Please go ahead, Mr. Smith. If you have problems speaking over the crowd, I suggest you do as I do on these occasions and use this.

A voice: You've been doing it all along!

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Brian Smith: The Nisga'a themselves really stand in sharp contrast to this audience. They are patient, reasonable people who—

A voice: You're paid a lot of money to—

Mr. Brian Smith: —for a hundred years have had a sense of injustice, who have met with governments in this province since the late 1880s, and who are a very, very advanced and unusual group of people.

They formed and ran a school district of their own about 25 years ago. In their schools in the Nass Valley, they have translated the core curriculum of British Columbia into the Nisga'a dialect so that their children who graduate from their schools can speak their native dialect and know the core curriculum of British Columbia.

They have managed local government and they have managed the school system. These are people who will use self-government wisely and practically. Self-government will not be some huge expensive model for them. They will use it very sensibly.

Also, their lands in the Nass Valley, the lands they're acquiring, are a very, very small portion of their claim. The third-party interests in those lands, which are not extensive, will require compensation and will need to be dealt with in accordance with contracts and existing rights on them. I'm certainly satisfied that those parts of the treaty have been handled fairly.

• 1330

From the standpoint of business, members of the committee, I think what business is most concerned with is the uncertainty that unresolved land claims pose. You are simply not going to have a mining company making investments. You're not going to have a timber company building a new sawmill or a new pulp mill coming in. You're not going to have aluminum plants coming into this province. You will not have this if you have areas the resource industry needs to have access to that are subject to multi- and conflicting unresolved land claims.

I think what the business community will tell you—and I'm sure they already have—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: —is that these matters have to be resolved. The courts have already said that these matters should be resolved by governments and by the first nations bands.

If they're not resolved that way, they will be resolved by courts. I don't happen to believe that is the best way to resolve these matters. Court-imposed decisions are going to leave, in some cases, a very bad taste for the real people that have to live with them, and they tend to produce results that are somewhat homogeneous and flexible and are not related to the reality on the ground. In each case these things have to be dealt with individually, but the sooner the better, and I think the Nisga'a agreement is a pretty reasonable one.

Voices: No!

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: Well, one of the—

A voice: Then put it to the people. Let's see what we think.

The Chair: Order.

Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Brian Smith: Well, democracy is certainly alive and well in this room, that's for sure.

A voice: You're damn right.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Brian Smith: If you don't agree with these people, they just shout you down. That's certainly parliamentary democracy.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Smith, just take your time. We'll stay here until—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: Business doesn't like uncertainty. It like certainty, and the agreement produces certainty.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: It's not going to produce a situation where every 10 or 20 years there will be a renegotiation, like there was in Alaska and other places when the Americans did their treaties. That's number one.

Number two is that there is eventually going to be a level playing field here on taxation. I think that was a terribly important ingredient of this: eventually the playing field will be level and taxes will be paid.

The third thing I think about this agreement is that the fisheries aspect of it was very troublesome and very troublesome for the negotiators.

A voice: Still is!

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: There's no question about it: if you're dealing with these matters they have to be dealt with very sensitively, but there is no constitutionalization or embedment in the treaty of a fisheries arrangement. It is a bilateral arrangement that can be changed and that would be subject to the laws of Canada.

I think it's a reasonable treaty. If the two governments can't reach an agreement with these people in the Nass Valley, who are high-minded, reasonable, patient, and decent—

A voice: They already have!

Mr. Brian Smith: If they can't reach an agreement, who can we ever negotiate a treaty with in this province?

If treaties are going to be subject to plebiscites in every region, they'll never be done either, and we know that.

Voices: No!

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Brian Smith: No. Anti-plebiscite or oligarchic, that's what it is, not democratic. You're—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]...the people.

Mr. Brian Smith: Yes, well, you're—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Brian Smith: There's nothing democratic about your utterances, I can assure you.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: It's mob rule. That's what you stand for.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Okay, let's confine—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Brian Smith: Anyway, I'm just going to just summarize by saying that this agreement will make the job of business easier. It will get us on the road to certainty—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]...agreement.

Mr. Brian Smith: —and it will establish some principles that will allow other treaties to proceed, to go forward and to be done. I think it's the best possible agreement that can be achieved under the circumstances, and we now need to conclude it and get on with the rest of the treaties.

• 1335

I thank the committee for their patience and for coming here to British Columbia.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. I want to assure you that your words to us—

Voices: Hear, hear!

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: —are very important, and we are listening. There are members of this audience who are also listening.

We'll move on to our second speaker, Mr. Stothert.

Would you like to go ahead, please, whenever you're ready?

Mr. Winston Stothert (Individual Presentation): Thank you. I'm pleased to be here.

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm not here representing any particular group, not the Vancouver Board of Trade, of which I'm a member, and not any of the many other organizations of which I'm a member.

I'd like to start out with some commendations. First, I want to express my admiration and commendations to the Honourable Mike Harcourt—

Voices: No!

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Winston Stothert: —who, as Premier of British Columbia, boldly and with great vision brought our province to the treaty negotiating table.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Winston Stothert: This was possibly the most progressive move made in the past two centuries towards reconciliation with the aboriginals in British Columbia.

I should recognize another fine individual, Jack Wiesgerber, who can take some of the credit.

A voice: How about Glen Clark? Do you like him too?

Mr. Winston Stothert: I'm coming to that. You're just getting ahead of me.

Secondly, I would commend the Honourable Glen Clark—

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: No!

A voice: Let him give his opinion here.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Winston Stothert: He, as premier, took a strong position leading to approval of the treaty by our provincial legislature.

I would be remiss if I did not comment on the outstanding leadership and guidance that has been provided by one member of this panel, Mr. Brian Smith—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Winston Stothert: —through his efforts within B.C. Hydro in developing arrangements with aboriginal businesses and in organizing, in concert with aboriginal leaders, the outstanding business at the summit seminars. He has probably done more as an individual than anybody else in bringing in a working relationship with aboriginals.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]...after repeated violations of the Fisheries Act.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Winston Stothert: I'm not an expert on the treaty, but I'd like to give you a little bit of personal relevant history.

I grew up on a ranch in Alberta, which we still operate. It was near the Saddle Lake Indian Reserve, home of a lieutenant governor of Alberta, Ralph Steinhaeuer, a Cree. We played hockey against Saddle Lake, where the rink fence was ice blocks cut from the lake. You slid into them at your peril. The Saddle Lake team were the most sportsmanlike team we played. We enjoyed our games with them the most. My father had a general store for some years. The aboriginals from Saddle Lake trusted him and he trusted them. He gave them credit and they never failed to pay their accounts.

In Prince Rupert, as general manager of the pulp mills there, I observed we had only two aboriginals employed after having been in business there for over 12 years. It was a difficult task to overcome the prejudice that questioned the work ethics of the aboriginals. More were hired during my stay, but not enough.

While in Prince Rupert, I had the privilege of serving as chairman of Friendship House, which was established by the United Church to provide accommodation for aboriginal students coming to high school from the reserves. An outstanding Tsimpshian, Ernie Hill, with his wife, looked after 16 to 18 students. Ernie's son Robert is today a leader of the Tsimpshian.

Indian Affairs paid room and board costs as long as the students passed each year. Coming from the reserve schools at that time made the first year of high school very difficult, and some failed. We provided free room and board for a second year when Indian Affairs would not, and in most cases those students completed graduation.

One time the house was filled to overflowing when we turned a student away. In November, we learned he was going to school and sleeping in the back seat of an abandoned car in the bush. We had room for him then.

• 1340

At The Pas, in northern Manitoba, we were called on by then Premier Ed Schreyer to complete the building of a forestry complex, hire 900, staff and run it. We worked with Chief Gordon Lathlin and his band of councillors, as well as representatives of the Métis. Over 200 aboriginals and Métis were hired, mostly for shift-type work. Many non-aboriginals and aboriginals were second- and third-generation welfare recipients, but they wanted to work and this project provided the jobs.

The performance of all these people was rewarding. However, we noticed aboriginals were not being promoted at a normal level, and there were complaints by supervisors in relation to their reliability. A survey showed less reliability of unmarried employees compared to married, and less reliability of those under 25 years old compared to those over 25 years old, but there was no statistical difference between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. We reviewed the results with our supervisors. It was agreed that perception had been coloured by prejudice, and promotions became normal.

In Vancouver, I had the privilege of co-chairing the provincial branch of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business for five years. A primary objective was placing aboriginal college graduates as interns in business and industry. Over 70% continued with their initial employer after their year of internship. This exercise was a way of overcoming lack of confidence by the prospective employee and a degree of prejudice on the part of the employer.

For the past 33 years, I've been leading an engineering and management consulting group based in Vancouver. We have designed, built and operated projects of up to $500 million in value across Canada and in 60 other countries. In some cases this has involved training indigenous people in developing countries to start up and operate large industrial plants, and they're all able to do it.

I'd just like to give you a layman's view, my opinion about the treaty, because none of the preceding gives me any basis to represent myself as an authority on the treaty. I do have the experience of working with aboriginals. Back in December 1996, I made a brief presentation to Ian Waddell's select standing committee on aboriginal affairs, and I quote from it:

There is a sordid history of the European immigrants' treatment of aboriginals as third-class people.

A voice: What about...[Inaudible—Editor]?

Mr. Winston Stothert: It continues:

With this [treaty], the Nisga'a are putting all that history behind them in a truly magnanimous gesture and are looking positively toward the future. [This treaty] will give the Nisga'a freedom from the stifling Big Brother influence of the Department of Indian Affairs.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Winston Stothert: Further to that:

The federal government is spending $7 billion a year on matters relating to aboriginals in Canada. As long as this...exists, the golden rule will continue to apply...

A voice: What's your golden rule?

Mr. Winston Stothert: It says:

the one who has the gold makes the rules.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Winston Stothert: I'll continue, Madam Chair:

The Nisga'a nation has shown outstanding statesmanship in agreeing to major compromises...for a treaty which, for the first time, will provide an opportunity for them to sustain themselves with pride and integrity. It's difficult for three independent-thinking parties, each with its own agenda, to compromise sufficiently to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all three parties.

In the process, there are other interests which are affected. This is unavoidable.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Mr. Stothert, you can just continue talking. I've found over the last week that if you continue talking, the noise does go down eventually. This chair, Mr. Stothert, will not get angry with these people. We will try to have order and just keep talking. I'm sorry. This committee has the ability to hear you, and you are on the record. Thank you.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Ms. Barnes, it doesn't bother me at all.

A voice: Why did they send MPs out here?

• 1345

Mr. Winston Stothert: I'll just pick up where I was:

There may be some relatively intangible aspects which may prejudice some third parties against the [treaty], but these must be balanced against the tangible and the intangible adverse circumstances that have been imposed on the Nisga'a over two centuries.

...

[This treaty] will not be the pattern, nor the process, for the numerous other treaties which may follow throughout the province.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Winston Stothert:

However, it will establish precedents in rational compromise by three strong parties, which can lead to many more settlements with other aboriginal groups. The people of British Columbia may not have another landmark opportunity within our lifetime to achieve other treaty settlements unless this one is confirmed by the Nisga'a and the two governments.

A voice: We won't be able to afford one.

A voice: It's very simple. Have a vote. What are you people all afraid of? You're sitting here talking to yourselves! The is an absolute outrage against democracy!

A voice: Absolutely.

A voice: We want democracy.

Voices: Hear, hear!

A voice: You don't even have a speaker here to tell you what the people think. You're afraid of hearing it, so you shut it off. You're afraid of the people of B.C.! Shame on you!

Voices: Shame, shame!

[Editor's Note: Prolonged protest from the audience]

The Chair: Mr. Stothert, just hold on for a second, please.

They're leaving now, Mr. Stothert, and you'll be allowed to continue.

A voice: This is where our goddamn money goes!

Mr. Winston Stothert: I'd like to comment on the land involved. The amount of land involved is 2,000 square kilometres, or 200,000 hectares. In the British system, that would be just under 500,000 acres.

A voice: We've had enough of you guys.

A voice: What a disgrace you are, you people!

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]...before we vote in British Columbia. It ain't for the Liberal party, that's for sure. I'm a Liberal, and I'm ashamed of ever being one!

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Winston Stothert: Skeena Cellulose at Terrace—

[Editor's Note: Protest from the audience]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Stothert.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Skeena Cellulose at Terrace has Tree Farm License No. 1, with 670,000 hectares. At one time, it was much larger. They have held this for half a century—

A voice: Why won't you allow the public to speak here? All you listen to is yourselves. This is not even a democratic country any more.

A voice: You sit down.

[Editor's Note: Protest from the audience]

An hon. member: Keep talking. They're leaving.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Skeena Cellulose at Terrace has Tree Farm License No. 1, with 670,000 hectares. At one time, it was much larger.

A voice: Ninety-five percent opposed it. That's what the people think.

Mr. Winston Stothert: They have held this for half a century, with many rights of management, none of which have been seriously questioned. Some of the same rights contained in the treaty are being heavily criticized.

A voice: Go back to Ontario.

A voice: Go back to Ottawa!

Mr. Winston Stothert: So Skeena Cellulose has an area that's more than three times the size, and they've held it for over half a century.

A voice: Just have a vote. That's all we want.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Employment provided by Skeena's forestry operations, including staff, logging and trucking, totals 200. On a pro rata basis, the treaty lands would provide 60 jobs in this industry sector. That's how much that land is worth in terms of the forest industry, only 60 jobs.

• 1350

It is of interest to note examples of other large land parcels alienated with virtually no criticism. In British Columbia, the Douglas Lake Ranch, now owned by an American, had 513,000 acres, and the Nisga'a are getting less than 500,000 acres, less than the Douglas Lake Ranch. Since the 1800s, the Gang Ranch has had 738,000 acres, about 50% more than the treaty land. It is now owned by an Arab investor.

If there's going to be any criticism, why don't people look at all of these things? Employment provided by these large land holdings could be in the order of 25 to 50 jobs each: 750,000 acres, 50 jobs. The Nisga'a are getting under 500,000 acres.

I'd like to comment on responsibility. Aboriginals are criticized by some non-aboriginals for lacking management ability, misappropriation of funds, poor work ethics, and substance abuse. A common criticism of the treaty is in the giving of funds for management by aboriginals.

I would refer you to a recent news article criticizing the treaty, which referred to a band in Alberta where some are rich and some are in poverty, although it is difficult to follow the reasoning as to why this is a basis for attacking the treaty. It can be just as easy to cite examples of all of these problems with non-aboriginals. There are wonderful examples of great success in business management by aboriginals; unfortunately, they don't make the news.

Self-government is a source for criticism in the treaty. Under the Department of Indian Affairs, and certainly until recent years, aboriginals were not allowed to enter into contracts without the blessing of Her Majesty. How much better have the bureaucrats of Indian Affairs done, using the Musqueam home leases as an example? If you own a lot now worth $300,000 or more, which at 6% interest could earn you $18,000 a year, would you be happy with a lease payment of $400 annually?

A voice: It's $10,000 a year. Get your facts straight.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Some aboriginals will manage and govern well, and some may not do so well, given that they had such responsibilities removed from them for many generations. The treaty says it is time for them to accept responsibility for themselves and, if necessary, learn from their own mistakes.

Welfare costs, it is argued, will continue to be at a high level. When aboriginal children were taken from their homes, there was a two-generation loss of knowledge of parenting skills. The non-aboriginals should be levelling such criticism at themselves, not at the aboriginals.

I have some general observations. The treaty required major compromises on all sides. There was consultation. Reasons can be found to criticize something that is not perfect. The majority agree that a solution is necessary and urgent. The critics strongly opposed to the treaty do not appear to offer what any of the parties could consider to be acceptable alternatives. In general, the critics do not offer alternatives.

• 1355

The spirit of future cooperation built on the foundations contained in the treaty will provide a degree of certainty, which is essential to the future well-being of both aboriginals and non-aboriginals in our province.

Madam Chairman, I have enjoyed making this presentation. Copies of this will be distributed to you. I didn't want it given out beforehand.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll have the brief circulated amongst the committee members. Mr. Stothert, I can assure you that every member of the committee heard what you had to say.

Mr. Wong, would you like to go ahead, please?

Mr. Milton Wong (Chairman, Laurier Institution): Madam Chair and members of Parliament, thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I'm speaking today in my capacity as the chairman of the Laurier Institution. The Laurier Institution is a not-for-profit independent think-tank whose mandate is to research conflict arising from cultural diversity. We express this mandate through the promotion of informed debate, which we believe increases understanding in the greater community.

As many of you know, Laurier Institute recently completed a substantial research study on land claims, entitled Prospering Together. This peer-reviewed work, which was authored by 11 academics and has become a cornerstone to the debate on land claims, definitely affirms the need for resolution of difficulties arising from the issue of land claim settlements. Even dissenting voices in the study expressed the same goal: There is a need to settle the land claims question in British Columbia.

I wish to focus on the economic ramifications associated with the Nisga'a Final Agreement. As a successful entrepreneur with a lifelong career in investments, I have spent much time reflecting on two themes: the value of economic certainty, and the necessity for entrepreneurship. Today I will expand on these themes in order to affirm the need to pass Bill C-9. There's no doubt in my mind regarding the legitimacy of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, and I aim to make clear why.

The determination of economic certainty is an essential condition of all investment decision-making. As an investment manager, I think the measurement of risk, based on hard facts, determines the likelihood that investments will be made in any situation.

Political and social instability are risks. These risks will always detract from investment. Certainty is the very foundation of attracting investment.

Capital knows no border. It's mobile. We must compete for it. So long as we have economic uncertainty in this province, new capital will be very tentative in making investments in the resource sector in British Columbia. In the global marketplace, international companies that may wish to invest in British Columbia will make comparative analyses to other parts of Canada and to other parts of the world.

Around the world examples abound of lost foreign capital. Take Indonesia. That country has lost significant foreign capital because of unrest and distasteful politics in East Timor.

On the other hand, there are also examples of what happens when nations work together towards economic certainty. In October 1995, a treaty was signed between the Maori of the Waikato District of New Zealand and the New Zealand government. Following the settlement, the Maori assumed a new role as partners in the development of the district. Significant joint ventures followed. The message? Cultural harmony is valuable to the human condition, and evidence of cultural harmony is attractive to business.

Likewise, with the ratification of the Nisga'a final settlement, we can anticipate joint ventures and community development schemes that involve Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a.

• 1400

Economic benefits do already accrue to the greater community. A study by the Vancouver accounting firm KPMG estimated that when all the financial impacts are considered, the province can expect about three dollars' worth of total financial benefits for every dollar of provincial costs. This benefit arises mainly from cash awarded to the first nations that will spawn economic development in the first nations community.

According to the Nisga'a Tribal Council, already about $13 million is pumped annually into the regional economy by the Nisga'a and other tribal groups. This is in the Smithers-Terrace-Prince Rupert corridor. Economic certainty is the cornerstone of prosperity all around. This cannot be emphasized enough.

In ushering in an economic certainty with the ratification of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, the people of the Nass Valley will have a framework for developing economic self-sufficiency. Entrepreneurship will play an important role. Right now, unemployment in the Nass Valley is at over 65%. Consider this number, the huge disparity of this figure as compared to the greater Canadian community landscape indicates great dysfunction.

I contend that unemployment can be lowered and self-sufficiency can be engendered with economic certainty and the development of entrepreneurial skills. Entrepreneurship involves something that is badly needed here, a complete paradigm shift. It means a paradigm shift from merely managing money to owning and creating wealth. The people of the Nass Valley have not had the opportunity to develop business savvy for many reasons, including generations of denied participation and extreme isolation.

However, this can change with education and exposure to corporate Canada. We need to embark on joint ventures with the Nisga'a. This kind of pure cooperation will help break a structural dependency on the system that aboriginals now face. Prosperity can result from the ratification of the Nisga'a Final Agreement. Change cannot happen overnight; everyone knows that. It has been ten years since the fall of the Berlin wall, and yet the former East Germany still lags behind its western counterpart.

However, this Nisga'a Final Agreement will cause change and shift the current negative paradigm towards positivity. The extra amount of certainty and the opportunity for entrepreneurship it will create are our hopes for Nisga'a self-sufficiency, positive social change, and a sense of inclusiveness and partnership within the whole province.

In closing, let me affirm my belief in the necessity of passing Bill C-9. Think of the positive historical precedent set by the treaty with the Maori in New Zealand. The ratification of the Nisga'a Final Agreement grants closure so that we can jointly embark on a brand new beginning for the new millennium.

A voice: We're not in New Zealand!

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Wong.

Mr. McLean, whenever you're ready to start.

Mr. David G. McLean (Chairman of the Board, Canadian National Railway): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I'm going to try if I can to speak about issues that haven't been completely dealt with by other speakers. I should say that I am chairman of Canadian National Railways. We have 22,000 employees throughout North America and we certainly have a lot of occasion to deal with aboriginals, because our rail line runs through some 40 aboriginal communities, and we've had an excellent relationship over the past several years with the aboriginal community.

I speak to you today not just as chair of Canadian National but also as someone who has had a lot of involvement in leading the business community. I chaired the Vancouver Board of Trade and I also had occasion to chair the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I must say that during the year I travelled throughout Canada I became imbued again—as if you would ever lose it—with the wonderful nature of our country, the diversity, the tolerance, and the institutions that we've developed.

The Nisga'a agreement, in my view, represents some of the best of that kind of thinking. It's not perfect; we all know that. It never will be perfect. You'll never produce a perfect document that everybody will be happy with. But the most important thing I think is to stand back and to see the bigger picture. I think Mr. Wong's comments really illustrate the importance I place in the Nisga'a treaty giving economic independence to a people who are very proud and are very independent-thinking.

• 1405

I had occasion to visit the Nass Valley and meet a lot of the Nisga'a people, and I must say I was very impressed by the progress they've made. I think what we're doing here is giving them the tools, as Mr. Wong said, to make them economically independent. That is really what this is all about.

I think some people get bogged down in detail and they worry about other forms of government and all this sort of thing. I don't think that's really the issue. What appeals to me as a business leader is the certainty it creates, and particularly the fact that they will obey the laws of Canada, they will obey the laws of the province, they'll become taxpayers, and they will be equal citizens in every sense of that word.

There will be some ways in which they legislate among their own people for things that are best dealt with by them. I don't think I have any problem with that. I think from the business community's point of view, we feel this is a great step in providing economic independence to a people who I think more than deserve it by the background they have.

I think the fact that they are prepared to pay taxes, that we get away from this paternalism we've had in Indian Affairs for so long.... I think the bottom line is that the status quo hasn't worked. It's not working. We have to do something radical to fix it. It takes courage to change the status quo. You can't do this by tinkering with little details. You have to be courageous, and I think there has been some courageous leadership in bringing this whole issue to a head and getting it resolved.

It's been discussed for a long time. I had occasion to chair a meeting over a year ago of business leaders in Vancouver. We invited a cross-section of business leaders to a meeting over lunch and we discussed this treaty. And I think that while all of us feel it's not perfect, and there are a lot of little things we could tinker with, at the end of the day when you sit down and negotiate at arm's length and you make a deal, as long as the deal is in framework a in which it's not going to radically change the nature of the way we do business, then we should get on with implementing it and particularly enabling these people to show us how they can benefit from some of the things we've put into the treaty.

I think it's a question of timing. The time has come where we have to deal with an aboriginal issue once and for all and get some certainty. The Nisga'a live in a particular area of the province that's gorgeous. For those of you who haven't seen it, I strongly recommend you go up and see it. I think they they can perform a very good function within their own environment. I think they'll be fair. I think they'll make this treaty work, and I think the financial settlements are almost secondary to the fact that you're giving these people a new sense of self-respect and you're giving them the opportunity to be economically independent.

A few years ago when I was chairman of the board of trade, we met at Whistler and we invited a number of aboriginal leaders to join us to discuss how the business community could reach out and do something to change the way things had been done with aboriginals over many years, and I think at the end of the day, if I could sum it up in two words, what they really wanted were the tools to become economically independent. They don't want other people to pay their bills. They want to work. They want to do their thing. They want to do it in their own cultural way.

What I've been impressed by as a national leader in going across Canada is that we have a lot of different cultures in this country and they work. I think, as Mr. Wong said, cultural diversity is what makes Canada a great nation.

I think the Nisga'a agreement is only one more step in the tolerance that Canadians show for each other. Instead of looking upon this as a negative thing, let's start looking upon it as a positive thing. This is a step towards a whole new relationship with people we have not treated very well over a long period of time. I think we must develop trust on both sides and I think the mechanism of this treaty is such that this trust can be implemented. It's extremely important, I think, for all of us to step back from the details and see the bigger picture.

So I would like to conclude by saying that while the Nisga'a treaty is not perfect, I think it's as good as you're going to get. I think you can spend ten more years negotiating and you wouldn't really change anything in substance. So let's get on with it. Let's trust and put our foot forward and give the aboriginal people who are affected by the Nisga'a agreement—

A voice: All of B.C. is affected. I want a referendum.

Mr. David McLean: —an opportunity to prove to the rest of the country that they can be responsible and they can start on the first step on the road to becoming economically independent. I believe the Nisga'a treaty is an excellent first step in this direction.

Thank you.

• 1410

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. McLean.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: The first round will go to Ms. Meredith. Ms. Meredith, you have five minutes.

Before you begin, I'll just remind all of my colleagues that you've asked me to enforce the five minutes, which is five minutes for the questions and the answers. Short questions and short answers, please.

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us this afternoon. I have heard from all of you, and I assume most of you are here representing the business community and the investment community and the economic results of this treaty.

Having been in the north for 15 years, having been a small business person, and having worked with the aboriginal communities, both treaty and non-treaty, I am interested to know whether you can give a commitment to the Nisga'a people. You are saying they're being given the tools to become economically independent, that it's going to put them in a new economic environment.

I want to ask you if you honestly think the traditional sources of revenue are going to lend money to individuals in Nisga'a when they don't have any personal property to support any kind of loan from a traditional lending source. Is it really realistic for you to tell the individual Nisga'a people that they will have economic independence?

The Chair: Mr. Wong, go ahead.

Mr. Milton Wong: I assume that question is towards me.

First of all, in terms of economic independence, it begins with education. The levelling of the playing field will begin with education, with our institutions. Your question reflects the issue of directing to the financial capital markets in terms of whether they will provide financial resources. I assume the partnership is more than just a financial resource, like holding a mortgage.

In entrepreneurship, it's the creation of wealth, and money is only one element of it.

A voice: It's an important one.

Mr. Milton Wong: Yes, it is important, but it's in partnership with the human capital that has to come by. When you make loans or you make joint venture relations, it's not just money; it's knowledge and the trust that develops, and the certainty of that trust.

The Chair: Ms. Meredith, Mr. Stothert indicated that he wanted to add something.

Go ahead, Mr. Stothert.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Thank you.

I think there has been a lot of criticism about the form of ownership of the land. A lot of people feel it should have been fee simple. Of course, fee simple would allow for borrowing money on it and that sort of thing.

If you look back on the cultural history of aboriginals, hunters go out in a number of different directions. One would find a deer or a moose and bring it back, and the other hunters would come back with nothing. They would all share it. That goes back probably thousands of years. It's their choice to go the way they're going on this in terms of the ownership of the land. There are other examples, which perhaps are not relevant, the Hutterite colonies and that sort of thing. They function all right.

Ms. Val Meredith: I appreciate your comments on the historical relevance, but having experienced two communities right next door to each other, one treaty reserve and one non-treaty, it was the non-treaty that started business and became independent entrepreneurs when we gave them land tenure and land ownership, because they had some assets in order to borrow money.

What I'm asking you is whether it is fair to tell the aboriginal community, the Nisga'a people, that they have the tools of becoming economically independent. Would it be more fair to say that collectively, as a first nations people, they may have resources that will allow them to develop some businesses? Individually, they will not be economically independent. They will rely on the relationship they have with the leadership in the collective.

The Chair: Mr. Smith, go ahead.

Mr. Brian Smith: I think she makes a good point, because tenure is terribly important in lending money. This has been a real problem. As you know, the banks have been very slow to respond to non-property-based lending. They're not interested in the security of the title. The Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Ottawa is some shadowy figure. So this has been a problem.

• 1415

More and more lending institutions are now prepared to advance money even on the existing tenure system. The Burrard Band were able to do this with Abbey Woods and their development up on the Seymour parkway.

One band, the Sechelt Band, opted for the land tenure system in 1988-89. We passed provincial legislation and federal legislation that gave them access to the land tenure system of the province. I suspect many of the bands are going to want the same thing, because I think you're absolutely right that without the ability to raise money on their land, collectively it's going to be a disadvantage.

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I will ask Mr. McLean and Mr. Wong to answer the questions that I have been asking each group for the past few days.

Personally, I support the Nisga'a Agreement. Our opponents put forward two arguments to justify the fact that they are against this agreement: equality and certainty. Since you are businessmen, I imagine that you will first want to deal with the matter or certainty. For my part, I have done some thinking that I will tell you about, and I will ask Mr. Wong and Mr. McLean to comment.

The fundamental issue is to determine whether we recognize that there are Aboriginal peoples in Canada. I would say yes, but I will listen to what you have to say. I agree that there is a Nisga'a people or nation in Canada. If we agree on that, then we also agree that this people has specific rights. I believe that there is a people in Quebec, a Canadian people and Aboriginal peoples, and we must grant these peoples specific rights. There are two ways of going about this. The legislator can do it, but the courts can also act. When we look at all of the Supreme Court decisions, we note that the result is about 50 to 0 in favour of Aboriginal peoples at this time. Therefore, the courts recognize that these are peoples and that these peoples have specific rights. Therefore, with respect to equality, I feel that the matter is settled. We can be equal, but we can also be very different. This is what the courts are saying and also what the legislators recognize through a treaty such as this one.

Now that we have recognized that they have specific rights, we must begin negotiations between nations, negotiations in view of establishing a partnership. If we agree that they are a nation and we are a nation, the two nations must sit down together, recognize that each one has rights, and try to reconcile all of these rights. That is what is being done with the treaty that we are studying today. It is a treaty to establish a partnership between two nations.

I dealt with the question of equality earlier. I will now deal with the matter of certainty.

If, in a treaty between nations, like the one we have before us today, we find all of the necessary provisions to allow us to say, with the agreement of all levels of government, that we will proceed in a given way for forestry, the fishery, and natural resources, then it seems to me that we have reached a level of certainty that should be agreeable to the business community and to Canadians in general.

Mr. Wong and Mr. McLean can tell me if they share my opinion and if they see any justification for our opponents to claim that this treaty is not fair and creates uncertainty. Personally, I see it differently. Could you please tell me what you think about what I have just said?

[English]

The Chair: Who would you like to start with, Mr. Bachand?

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Maybe Mr. McLean.

[English]

Mr. David McLean: Mr. Bachand, I certainly heard your comment. With respect, I'd like to disagree a bit and say that I don't see this as being nation to nation at all. In fact I think it's just the opposite. I think what we're finding is a people who are becoming more of a citizen of Canada. I think the treaty will allow them to be more effective citizens as opposed to being part of a separate nation.

• 1420

This is exactly what we're trying to avoid in this country—dividing us up into different groups. I think those of us who have been to Nisga'a and spent time with the Nisga'a people recognize that what the Nisga'a want more than anything is to be full citizens of Canada. They want to be very much participating in all the institutions that are part of Canada, but they want to have economic independence to do it. Economic independence is quite different from political independence, as I'm sure you're well aware.

I think what the Nisga'a are doing in this context is becoming more integrated and more a part of the Canadian fabric, but in a framework that will allow them to develop their economy and their region and therefore become a very useful part of the structure of Canada.

The Chair: You have about 30 seconds, Mr. Wong.

Mr. Milton Wong: I just want to paraphrase what Mr. McLean stated.

Canada is a tapestry. We have institutionalized multiculturalism, and the laws of the land have shown that. And a tapestry requires relationships. In that tapestry, the weaving of the relationship is what's going to make this country strong, make it pliable and resilient. That's what we're looking for.

There's your 30 seconds.

The Chair: That is exactly 30 seconds. You have a clock in your head. That's wonderful.

Ms. Davies, go ahead. You have 5 minutes.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson.

I too would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I find myself in a strange position in that I don't often find myself on the same side as leaders from the business community, but I have to say that I thought you were all very eloquent in what I really believe most people in B.C. and across Canada believe, and that is just the common sense of choosing negotiation over conflict, of choosing economic security over chaos, and choosing social justice over continuing oppression and poverty. I really believe that most people understand that.

Unfortunately, there is also a very big campaign of fear and misinformation going on out there. So I really appreciate the fact that the business community has come forward publicly to put forward their thoughts in terms of a business perspective on this treaty, and I'd like to pick up on a couple of comments.

Firstly, Mr. Wong, you spoke about the mandate of the Laurier Institute as being to deal with conflict from cultural diversity. I think as Canadians we like to think that we are tolerant, that we respect one another. But obviously, with something like this treaty, we can see the kind of fear that comes about when people feel that if someone else is gaining rights, it's a diminishment of other people's rights, and that somehow it's an either/or situation. So I'd be very interested in what lessons you think we can learn from this process in terms of understanding and trying to remove the conflict from cultural diversity, even as it pertains to this treaty.

Secondly, to Mr. Smith—because I can't ask all of you—I hear you saying that you see this treaty as a mechanism for a better understanding and relationship with the business community. I understand that. But it seems to me as well that this treaty and what's laid out is a two-way street. The Nisga'a people may want to engage in relations with the business community in a very traditional way in the business world, but it seems to me that the whole notion of collective and group rights and cultural tradition is something the business community can also learn from, in terms of different forms of economic development. There might be economic development that is more group based, that is a collective effort. I'm interested to know if you think there is that sort of interest from the business community itself, as we move down this path that's now building an economic and entrepreneurial relationship with the people of the Nass Valley.

So I'll have just those two questions.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Wong is first. Go ahead.

Mr. Milton Wong: I'd like respond to the question of whether it is necessary to have conflict.

In a democracy, in our mind, conflict is a very necessary ingredient to promote understanding. The key issue here is to have good information. When one talks about gaining rights and diminishing rights, that's a conflict in terms of being possessive, in terms of power. When you take power from someone else, they will be threatened. So that is the issue. By having a debate like today's, we're able to develop the understanding. There is no right or wrong; there's a correct one. And that's the beautiful thing about Canada.

• 1425

The Chair: Go ahead, please, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Brian Smith: I think Ms. Davies is bang-on that this doesn't mean that first nations are going to be turned into carbon-copy North American entrepreneurs. They're going to do their own kind of entrepreneurism, which quite often will be more consensual and group based. That's already occurred in some of the agreements that have been made in the forest industry. First nations tend to deal with things by a circle or larger committee, with elders and so on. They don't have a North American executive model, nor should they.

So I agree that will change, just as in the justice field. We're finding that we can learn in the justice field from native healing, from circles, and sentencing. They have validity even for non-natives involved in the justice system.

David McLean put his finger on it, Madam Chairman, that self-sufficiency, self-respect, and self-worth are going to reappear in many of the impoverished bands, and that's going to happen not just in their business lives, but in their cultural lives and everything else.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. David McLean: Madam Chairman, can I add a very short comment?

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. David McLean: I thought that Ms. Davies really made a very good point on the question of diminishing rights—the issue that if I give you some rights, it takes away somehow from mine.

I think just the opposite. From a business perspective we're going to have more rights, because we're going to have people out there who are going to be much better citizens of Canada, and the better citizens of Canada they are, the better it is for me. So I think we should quit fearing that when we give something away, we take something away from ourselves. I think you've hit the very root of what some of the fearmongering that's going on about this treaty is all about, and I think it's very important.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to welcome our witnesses here. It's been an interesting day with a lot of debate—a lot of debate that needs to occur, obviously.

My question—and a statement, of course, Madam Chair—is to Milton Wong. A statement was made about property ownership, and I guess we all look at this treaty process, and this particular treaty, the Nisga'a treaty, in a different light. But certainly, as a landowner and a farmer, I look at the fee simple land ownership that the Nisga'a will gain from this treaty. And it should be made very clear that Nisga'a lands will be held fee simple, period. There is no such thing as fee simple common, or fee simple communal. They're fee simple, owned and controlled by the Nisga'a government. Nisga'a individuals will have the right to own land within that group.

How Nisga'a people themselves carve up the land holdings, how it's divided once it's all owned by the Nisga'a government, may be different from how we perceive it. We don't really know. We can't answer that question yet, because we haven't seen it. But the land ownership is fee simple.

You can take that property to the bank and use it for collateral, and I think that's an extremely important thing, because the Nisga'a will obviously want to develop industry and take their rightful place in the economy of the province of British Columbia. And with respect, Mr. Wong, I've never been able to go to a bank yet and get any kind of real security simply on my strength of character or on my reputation as a business person in Nova Scotia. They always like to see a little bit of property put up with it—sometimes I feel it's too much, but we can negotiate that.

But certainly I think we all look at this from our own points of view. That's one point of view: fee simple land ownership—if you care to use such words—“like everyone else in the province of British Columbia”.

Do you see that as being an asset?

The Chair: Mr. Wong, go ahead.

Mr. Milton Wong: I do see that...[Inaudible—Editor]. I do think the banking community, if that's what we're talking about in terms of investments, will evolve to work toward that. Nothing is static in that regard.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, you have about two and a half minutes to go. This is unusual for you. Go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I can't believe I have two and a half minutes.

• 1430

I realize that the panel members are fairly like-minded in their approach to this treaty, but there are two sides to the debate. Some people are of the opinion that the treaty is a bad treaty and some people are of the opinion that the treaty is a good treaty.

There are things about this treaty that I find encouraging and that I like. We've talked about some of them already. I'll go through the list, which you guys can add or subtract from.

The things I like include the fee simple land ownership rights; the Constitution of Canada applying; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applying; and the fact that the Nisga'a will control their property with a municipal-style government, and with some quasi-provincial and some quasi-federal rights. I've heard a lot of criticism from members of Parliament and members of the public that somehow those rights will mean a hybrid system of government in this country that's not accountable to ordinary Canadians and to the rest of Canada in general. But all the basic rights protected by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights of Canadians are protected under this.

I've heard talk about areas 14 or 17. People really need to read this treaty and look at those areas individually. One of the areas that will have a provincial style of jurisdiction is the area of family and children's services. It very clearly states in the treaty that in the area of family and children's services, the protection for families and children can't be any less than are already there, protected under the province of British Columbia's laws. You can't have something that's inferior. It has to be as good or superior to what's there.

I like the citizenship rights and the fact that we're not going to have taxation without representation. There's a lot of discussion about that, but it does not occur on Nisga'a lands. It will not occur, and it can't occur, under the NFA.

Those issues need to repeated over and over again, because those are the fundamental, basic issues that touch each and every Canadian as we live in this country together. It seems to me that a lot of the opposition has centred around a few key areas.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, you're out of time now.

Voices: No.

The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly, five minutes, please.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I was almost going to give my time to Mr. Keddy, but I won't.

The Chair: I'm sure he'd take it.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Let me take this opportunity to thank the witnesses under difficult circumstances. You've held up very well, and I thank you.

As a committee, we have had some difficult circumstances to deal with in coming to British Columbia at this time of year. In fact, we had a party when the airplane actually landed at an airport we were headed for. We've been able to see quite a bit of the area, from Smithers to Terrace to Prince George to Port Moody and so forth.

My question to all of you, at the end of my dissertation here, will be this: What would you recommend to improve the treaty process with particular regard to third-party disputes or claims? Throughout, that's one question we've found we need an answer for.

Mr. Stothert, I want to direct my first question to you. You commented on there being no good-news stories. You say in here, I believe, that there are wonderful examples of great success by aboriginals in business management, but unfortunately they don't make the news.

My comment this morning that aggravated the press to the point where they have challenged me on a couple of things is that the press in British Columbia, although not all, does not report the news but try to create the news. I said that the B.C. press is generally a very sick organization, only promoting bad news concerning the native population.

I've worked on a number of small-town newspapers, so I have some background here. They're not famous newspapers, but they are, once again, small-town newspapers where you make a hard living, sometimes selling advertising and writing stories and covering council meetings that aren't as exciting as this one.

Having read not the national papers—and everyone has an opinion as to what they are—but the local papers in Port Moody, Prince George, Terrace, and Smithers, I could not find, anywhere, one good-news story concerning natives, aboriginals, or anything to do with first nations people.

• 1435

I hope I'm wrong in my assumption. Again, I want to challenge the members of the press who are here. Forward to me your good-news stories that concern or have something to do with something good about this treaty, or about aboriginals, or about natives, or about whatever you want to do with this. Forward them to me. Prove me wrong.

Mr. Stothert, you hit on a point I observed, just as an old newspaper hound, throughout the travels. You touched on it here, but I think you probably would like to expand on it.

The Chair: Mr. Stothert.

But I believe it was Port Hardy we went to. I don't know if there is a Port Moody.

Mr. Winston Stothert: There is a Port Moody.

The Chair: Okay. But we went to Port Hardy.

Mr. Winston Stothert: There are lots of good-news stories. I think a person who probably could recite them better than I would be Brian Smith, who had these excellent business summit sessions at which aboriginal and non-aboriginal businesses got together.

I know of one case where the band in Merritt put about $20,000 into property investment. They said if they made any money on it, they'd just reinvest it. Today it's worth about $20 million. They know how to manage their money.

Lots of aboriginals know how to manage their money and lots of non-aboriginals don't know how to manage their money. But my impression—and none of us are really naive when it comes to the news media—is that good-news stories don't sell newspapers.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you.

If I have some time remaining, I would like the other panellists to tell me what recommendations they would make to improve the treaty process.

The Chair: Which panellist? One can answer.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Take your choice.

The Chair: Mr. Smith, go ahead.

Mr. Brian Smith: I don't think the third-party process has been very good. I'm not talking about the Nisga'a treaty but the B.C. treaty process. There has been a lot of uncertainty with third parties.

There should be a process similar to what there is in provincial expropriation legislation in British Columbia. About five or ten years ago it was changed so that if you had your property expropriated, you were able to get most of the money immediately paid into an account where you could access it and then fight the value. You got the money first to help you fight the value. It puts you in a much stronger position.

I'm not talking about preventing the courts from looking at it. I'm talking about something a lot faster, some fast-track, quick, single-arbitration process.

Let's say you're a forest company and you have some holdings there, and some contracts. Suddenly all of these pass into the hands of a band as a result of a treaty. If the government hasn't made provision for you, you should have very fast access, I think, to arbitration, and you should also have fast access to some payment.

If we did things like that, I think we would reduce some of the suspicious feelings, particularly in the north and in the interior, where I tend to spend a lot of my time visiting hydro employees and dealing with municipal councillors and mayors and so on. This is the type of thing I pick up.

So I think there's quite a willingness to improve the treaty process. I hope you do it.

The Chair: We are going to try another round now.

Mr. Forseth, start, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

I think we can observe that if you don't get it done legitimately, then it breeds a heightened sense of injustice, and we lose control. All order breaks down.

You know, there probably is a lot of consensus on parts of the deal, but too many parts of the deal are really out of bounds of the mainstream of public confidence. I think the reason the deal is at least a political failure comes out of the beginnings of the negotiations, in the failure to commit to the political accountability of a referendum.

If the negotiators on both sides knew all along that a referendum was required, I think more more accountability would have tempered the proceedings and would have reasonably guided the negotiators as they went along. But political legitimacy was never properly obtained during the process, and I don't think there should be any surprise that the result does not have broad public support.

• 1440

If the foundation is wrong, then the thing is going to collapse. If the political process is forced or over-managed or does not bring along the public approval during the process, then the result is not going to be accepted no matter how much the deal makers preach that the disenchanted should just swallow hard and get on with it, as we've been told today.

When you observe the overall Nisga'a deal in all its fullness, what does this do in terms of your perspective on business planning? You know, it's one down, and fifty to go. In view of the process of the past, looking at Nisga'a, how do you advance and protect your particular business interests and then give some advice for future deals? What advice for lawmakers do you have that protects your business perspective, that gives them direction as to how differently future negotiations should be conducted to achieve results that could be more broadly supported, and that obtain the political support that's necessary, really, in the long run?

Mr. David McLean: First of all, you've raised some pretty good issues. As you said, there is consensus on parts of the deal and there isn't on others. I think that's like any business deal. You get to a point where not everybody's going to agree on every point, but you get to a point where you buy into it.

From a business point of view, we're happy to have the first deal done. It may not be a model for the rest, but it may be. I think time will tell whether or not the Nisga'a treaty is the one you want to look at when you start dealing with some of the other issues.

On the other hand, if we don't start somewhere, and don't get somebody started on this road, we'll be talking about this ten years from now. From a business point of view, I think we want to get this thing finalized.

There has to be, I agree with you, a political openness and transparency in the process as soon as possible. On the other hand, you have to have the framework of a deal first. You have to have at least some of the framework you want to present before you can open it up to public discussion.

I think what happened with the Nisga'a is that the negotiations took place between the parties and then it was exposed to the public. It's been exposed for some time. I first spoke on this issue probably 18 months ago, and certainly many times since. So it isn't as though we only heard about it five minutes ago.

At the end of the day, the business community has come to the conclusion that this is a pretty good deal to get started with. Can it be a model for the future? Who knows? I think a lot of it's going to depend on how it's implemented. I do think there are some things in it we can learn from, and in some respects it will be a model in terms of the way we handle future treaty negotiations.

Mr. Paul Forseth: To some of the others, instead of fighting so much about Nisga'a, as I said, it's one down and fifty to go. We need to learn from this process to try to get more political accountability all during the process so that in the end there's broad community support.

I talked earlier about political legitimacy and whether these things are going to fly in the long run and bring peace and harmony rather than trouble. Maybe you can give us some advice in that regard.

The Chair: Mr. Smith, please, and then Mr. Stothert.

Mr. Brian Smith: Assuming there will be no referendums, although that's something governments or natives could change their minds on, how do you do what you're mentioning? I agree, really, that this is the key to getting the rest of these B.C. treaties done. The old TNAC process they started on about five or six years ago did not work. Not only was business in the dark, but local government was also barely consulted. A lot of treaties were moving to the agreement-in-principle stage when nobody really knew what the hell was going on in them and there wasn't any community consensus.

I have to say, the approach has improved a lot in the last year or so. There's been much more of an eye to consultation. That's still going to have to improve further. You just can't have all these things done in backrooms. There has to be transparency and there has to be community values taken into account before the thing is in stone.

• 1445

I agree with you completely. That's the challenge, and I really do think the two governments understand that. It has to be balanced as well against the need to move on these things. They've been dragging. You have huge expectations out there in the native community that these things are going to happen.

About 50 of them are in readiness, and some are close to conclusion, like Sechelt, but if we're going to move through the rest of them without spending a decade in which the lawyers, negotiators and the whole industry are doing well but nobody else is, we have to be fast, fair and transparent. That is a heck of a challenge—it really is.

The Chair: Mr. Stothert, please go ahead.

Mr. Winston Stothert: A lot of things can be learned from this first treaty to be applied to future ones. One of them of course is third-party interest. If third parties don't know how their outcome is going to be when they have a financial interest at stake, they're going to be upset and they're going to stir up opposition. That's one point.

The other is this question of overlap of claims by different aboriginal groups. I suspect there needs to be some better mechanism than has been used this time around. There's a number of issues like this that need to be taken care of.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Iftody, please.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for those presentations and for being with us this afternoon.

I want to thank Mr. Forseth for his intervention earlier, and I really appreciate his view of this. He's one of the few members of Parliament from this province who have shown that kind of leadership in this whole process. So I want to publicly thank him for that.

I wanted to make a comment with respect to the whole question of fee simple and land ownership. My understanding in reading the treaty is that there will be opportunities and possibilities there for an evolution of that fee simple process. Although collectively held in the first instance, there are a number of features at page 168 in the treaty that will allow first nations, with perhaps interested parties, to parcel out sections of that, particularly for the purpose of collateral. So I think that's possible.

I wanted to flush out some thinking perhaps. I'd like Mr. Wong and Mr. McLean to elaborate on this. As an outside international investor, I would probably ask somebody like the Dominion Bond Rating Service to provide me with a report on what's happening in British Columbia with respect to its natural resource industry and general economic forecasts. Obviously the forestry and mining industry are important ones...and because of that, situated on, near, or about reserve land.

So I would think that if I was practising my due diligence for my client and I was with the Dominion Bond Rating Service, for example, and somebody from Australia, England, or New York called me and I was preparing a report, I would have to comment in that report about the state of these relations.

Mr. Wong commented on this during his opening comments with respect to some distasteful kinds of policies and practices that had occurred in other countries that scared investment away. This is really important, and I think the people of British Columbia need to know and understand the facts of this very clearly. We are being watched by the international community, not only of course by human rights organizations and so on, but perhaps equally importantly, by outside investors who want to move money around very quickly.

• 1450

Again, wouldn't it be in the interests of the people of British Columbia, particularly, to send a message to the world that you're open for business, that relations are good with your first nations people, that they want to do business as well? British Columbia, in this case, could lead internationally in terms of connecting the Nisga'a with international investors.

I'd like to hear from Mr. Wong first and then from Mr. McLean, please.

The Chair: Go ahead, please, Mr. Wong.

Mr. Milton Wong: First of all, I just want to reaffirm the fact that international investors do watch this country. I'd just like to talk about Quebec. Every time we have a Quebec referendum scare, the cost to Quebec goes significantly higher in terms of cost of capital. That's been proven.

Secondly, we are not the only resource country in the world. We have seen some of our resource companies invest in Chile and so forth. It's very fungible; in other words, capital can move quite dramatically.

I believe that in British Columbia, given that we are now becoming known as the environmental centre of the world in terms of cleanliness—and we could dispute that sometimes—there is an attraction on a global basis just on this aspect, in addition to the resources.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you.

Mr. McLean.

Mr. David McLean: You raised the issue of fee simple title, which was raised originally by Ms. Meredith. What's going to happen is that at the beginning it's going to be collective and then it's going to gradually evolve, as they have experience. There's no doubt banks will want charges against things when they go in there. The first time they get an issue will be when they want to develop a pulp mill or some kind of a business interest where it has to have major financing. I don't think that will be a problem. I think the treaty and the act will be such that there's flexibility to do that.

The bigger issue for the business community is the uncertainty we've seen created by the courts, by clouding the title of business. Banks can't take security in certain areas because they're afraid of these kinds of broad-brush decisions we've had by the courts in giving rights. The rights are vague; they're not absolutely sure. Do they have a right to the title? Well, they may have.

We've found in British Columbia that we have all these may-have rights. The courts have given them a whole bunch of may-have rights, and that creates terrible banking problems. No bank wants to touch security when somebody says “He may have a right over here and I can't really get good security.”

That's why there is the urgency of getting the Nisga'a settled, of getting the other treaties settled, so there's some certainty for everybody, and so that these may-have rights disappear and we know what the rights really are.

Nobody in business minds, whatever the climate might be, as long as we know what the rules are. Right now, the danger is that we have a lot of vagueness because the courts are trying to interpret things and they don't realize the damage they do when they bring out some of these judgments that create this question of cloud on title.

The Chair: It's Mr. Bachand's turn.

[Translation]

Your turn, Mr. Bachand. Please begin.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I will continue where Mr. McLean has left off. As soon as the session began, there was an emergency debate in the House of Commons on the Marshall decision and the East Coast fishery. I remember having enumerated all of the decisions that have allowed native peoples to benefit from their ancestral rights, beginning with that of the great Frank Calder, a Nisga'a, who obtained the recognition that Aboriginal peoples did have ancestral rights.

Whenever the Minister of Indian Affairs appears before a committee in Ottawa, once or twice a year, I tell him that the legislator is perhaps lacking in courage. There are a number of gray areas and the legislator leaves these matters for the courts to settle. And that's when the problems arise.

You represent the business community, and I am aware of your philosophy, but economic stability must be based on a democratic process, and a democratic process involves transparency and consultation. Many people have said that our consultations were not extensive enough. I don't agree, but I would like to know how you feel about that.

• 1455

There has been a debate in the legislature in British Columbia. I am told that there were closure motions aimed at ending the debate, but even so, it was the longest in the history of the legislature in that province. Moreover, during a referendum, the Nisga'a voted 61% in favour of the treaty that we have before us, and Canada's Parliament is now hearing 64 witnesses. We will continue our work on this next week. The time has come to act, as you said earlier.

Here is my first question, Mr. Stothert. As representatives of the people we are undertaking consultations. In British Columbia, the Nisga'a consulted through a referendum. Do you believe that the process is explicit enough to allow us to say that there is support for a bill because we think that everyone has been consulted?

My last question is to Mr. Smith. You say that it is important to speed up the negotiation process. From that I would take that you feel that once negotiations have been completed with all the nations in British Columbia, we will have absolute certainty. Until negotiations are complete with these nations, we will be at the mercy of court decisions, which feeds economic uncertainty.

If that is how you feel, then I agree with you, but I would like you to tell me clearly that we must negotiate as quickly as possible in order to arrive at the greatest number of agreements so as to create a climate of economic certainty.

[English]

Mr. Winston Stothert: Mr. Bachand, I'm politically a very naive person. I'm an engineer by training. I do know aboriginal people, as I've told you.

The vote in Parliament is going to be taken by people who are elected from across the country. They must speak for the people. It's fairly unwieldy to try to take.... I can't imagine all the treaties we've had over the years and how they would have fared on referendums. How can all the public become sufficiently educated and literate to make a good judgmental decision? I don't see how they can.

The Chair: Mr. Smith, go ahead and add to that.

Mr. Brian Smith: I really do agree with Mr. Bachand. I don't have anything more to add to it. I've said it before. We have to get on with them. We have to get on with them with a process that is consultative and fair, in which the public's not in the dark and suddenly sees a treaty they don't understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I have one short question.

If I understand correctly, you are satisfied with the consultative process that has been carried out up until now by the Nisga'a, the British Columbia Legislature, and Parliament. The economic community is satisfied with these consultations. Do we agree on that?

[English]

Mr. David McLean: Yes.

The Chair: And that's your time.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Finlay, you have five minutes, please.

Mr. John Finlay: Gentlemen, it's been a good afternoon. It's very interesting to hear something of your personal stories in connection with it and then apply them to this important matter we're dealing with.

I'm going to ask a little personal question. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, Mr. Smith. You intrigue me. You were originally a Social Credit minister in B.C. and then you went with the CNR and you found that the CNR had a court-oriented attitude to settling problems. You said it cost $1 million a day.

Mr. MacLean is now at CNR, am I not right?

Mr. David McLean: That's right.

Mr. John Finlay: It would seem to me that your attitude is that this has been cleared up. I just want to know whether Mr. Smith's being too modest and he should take some credit for—

Mr. David McLean: John, let me answer that, because I don't think we should ask him to toot his own horn. I think Mr. Smith did a great job in working with aboriginal groups through the consultative process. I can say today that we have excellent relationships with the native bands on whose land we cross.

• 1500

I think Mr. Smith has done a good job with this annual meeting he has to bring business and native leaders together. I think we've all learned a great deal about each other, and I think we tend to be more inclined to talk to each other rather than get excited and have blockades and court actions and that sort of thing.

I can tell you, as the chairman of CN, I'm delighted that our legal bills have dropped dramatically.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

Mr. Stothert, I was very intrigued with your stories and your background. You mentioned a job you were in charge of where you hired aboriginals and then you noticed they weren't being promoted. You gave us some statistics. I thank you, because they're in your outline here.

Are there any published statistics that you know of on that sort of point with respect to aboriginal people? I for one find it distasteful, and I know all of you do. The attitude about aboriginal people in northern Ontario is not good at all. Yet I too have seen some examples of good management and wonderful results. I admit that a lot of people have a very negative attitude. Are there any further studies that would show anything about that?

Mr. Winston Stothert: Mr. Finlay, I can't say that I'm aware of any. As you see, I have a lot of first-hand experience, and my experience has all been good. It's been uphill every time.

Mr. John Finlay: Like earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Well, that didn't bother me at all.

When I was in Prince Rupert, there was a place right near a couple of beer parlours that was referred to as Moccasin Square Gardens because there were a lot of drunks around there when the beer parlours closed. That was at a time when aboriginals could not go into a liquor store and buy liquor because they were second-class citizens. When the Attorney General of B.C. changed that, there were no more drunken people in Moccasin Square Gardens. That was a disgrace on the part of non-aboriginals, in my opinion. You can go on and on with that kind of thing.

There was a November 11 article by an aboriginal journalist. She was at a home with an aboriginal soldier who was living on the reserve, and the Indian agent came and told him he had to get off the reserve because he was no longer an Indian.

Boy, we have a lot of history to live down. I just can't believe the way the Nisga'a have been so magnanimous—I've used the word before—in forgetting that history and getting on with looking to the future in a very constructive way, with a lot of compromise on their part.

I just want to say something that I think this parliamentary committee should take back with them. If my facts are correct, I believe that while money is provided to bands or tribal councils to attend treaty negotiation sessions, if they pull out, if they withdraw, then that becomes money that has been advanced to them and it is then due and payable. That is a threat that's over their heads all the time they're at the treaty negotiating table. My facts may not be right, but that's what I've been told. I think that if it's so, it needs to be looked at. It sounds wrong to me.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, sir, for that comment.

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr. Finlay. Thank you very much.

Ms. Davies, please.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson.

I'm glad to hear that your legal bills went down. Starting from there, I think a number of you have made comments about what we've learned so far. Obviously there are things to be learned. In terms of future treaty negotiations, we want to see some improvement in terms of third-party interests. We'd like to see the process speeded up if that's possible, although we realize it's very complex.

I would add another thing. As we move forward, how can we minimize the polarization that takes place? I realize there are politics involved here. I think the Reform Party has had an agenda on this issue and they've used it to their maximum advantage.

• 1505

I think it's in the interests of all people to look to the Nisga'a treaty and to look at what comes next and to stick with the process. I think the business community has a very valuable role to play in that. You do have constituents and they will listen to you, just as hopefully my constituents, the people I work with, will listen to me.

There's a question I'd like to ask each of you, if you'd care to answer it. What plans do you have, in terms of your organizations or as individuals, to keep on with the educational process, to keep on with a message that negotiation is preferable to conflict and that to do things in good faith and with goodwill takes us to a place where people can live together? I don't know whether you've thought about that, but in terms of your organizations or other memberships that you have, how do you plan to stay involved so that we actually do move forward in terms of the ongoing process?

Mr. Milton Wong: I'll briefly do that. I am the chairman of the Laurier Institute, and for the land claims study, once we did the study we visited 16 towns and cities in the province and created debate. We believe education is the most fundamental way of developing that understanding and causing a multicultural society to function.

Ms. Libby Davies: And the Laurier Institute plans to continue to do that?

Mr. Milton Wong: Yes, we do.

Mr. David McLean: I would just add a comment. Brian Smith started an initiative probably five years ago called business at the summit. I think it's the kind of thing we need. That creates a dialogue. I've spoken at it, and I've encouraged DIAND officials to go and I encourage other people to go. It's the one forum where you actually sit down for a day or two and you talk about how we can mutually benefit with the aboriginal people and how we can help you.

They have come up to us. Certainly after the speech I made, I had many of them coming up and saying that's exactly what they want to do; they want to develop their economic independence and they need us to help them, provide some of the tools. That sort of thing needs to be expanded, and I think the Vancouver Board of Trade is certainly prepared to do seminars and things and expand what Brian started, the business at the summit.

There's a great interest by the business community, because we recognize quite honestly that this is going to be a major factor in business. We recognize that aboriginals are going to have a major role to play in the business of this country and in the business of this province. It's time we all sat down and decided what we can do together. As you say, Ms. Davies, you can certainly get a lot more done with sugar than with salt, and I think we've been spending far too much throwing the salt around.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): You have a minute.

Ms. Libby Davies: Actually, I'd invite the other two witnesses to answer if they'd care to.

Mr. Brian Smith: Certainly B.C. Hydro will continue cross-cultural training, putting quite a bit of money into assisting first nations students going to post-secondary education in the north, providing mentoring. We will continue to support the treaty process in every way we can. I made a lot of speeches in the north this year supporting that process. It's not just giving a blanket kind of sign-off that it's wonderful; it's trying to make it work. I certainly pledge that we'll do that, and I'm going to do business at the summit again for sure.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Stothert.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Thank you.

I mentioned that we do a lot of work overseas and help to start up and operate large industrial plants with indigenous people in developing countries. So what you're talking about, we're doing it on a rather massive scale.

We have quite an ethnic mix in our own engineering organizations, but not very many from our aboriginals in British Columbia. They seem to have tended to go to law more than the sciences. Every chance I get, I try to encourage them to get into science or finance but not law.

A voice: Too many lawyers.

The Chair: Your time is up. Thank you.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, go ahead for five minutes, please.

• 1510

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with the business sector.

Do you make business deals now with municipalities? With what we've heard about the Nisga'a negotiating in good faith and with a lot of compromise, as far as I know, from their original proposal, do you ask for this same scrutiny in other business deals you make that we are asking of the Nisga'a people, in coming to this agreement? Can I draw a comparison to some of the municipalities you deal with?

I know the Nisga'a have agreed to start paying taxes, so they will also be contributing to the money the federal government will be paying out. They will be paying back into it. I look at that as their own investment in their future.

If I can phrase the question differently, what more can the Nisga'a do today to make people understand that this deal is good for British Columbia? What more can we ask of them? I don't think we have to ask for any more, but what do you feel should be asked more of them to show that this treaty is good for the business sector of B.C.?

Any of you can answer that.

Mr. David McLean: I'll take a stab at it.

I think you're asking whether we feel the business community will deal with the Nisga'a once the treaty is implemented, and whether we have any reservations about it. The answer is absolutely not. We think the mechanism is there. The Nisga'a are just waiting to get the treaty approved so they can sit down and start doing business. I don't think there's any hesitation whatsoever by the business community to do business with the Nisga'a.

That will also go a long way toward some of the things Paul Forseth, Ms. Meredith, and others have raised about the future of treaty negotiations. The only way we're really going to get these deals done is to have one there that starts to work and show some success. On the basis of success, you build future success.

Speaking as a business leader and someone who deals every day in the business community, I don't use any hesitation in saying yes, we can do business with the Nisga'a under the framework of this treaty.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

Would any of the other members of the panel care to answer that or add to it? Otherwise, I'm done.

The Chair: Okay, we'll have the final round and finish with Mr. Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There's been a great deal of discussion at the table today about the cost of the treaty, and a fair amount of discussion about the cost of not having a treaty. I guess that takes us to the larger issue of the treaty process.

There are some numbers, and I think each of us, at some time or another, has put those numbers on the table. But I don't think there's enough discussion on what it costs to deal with first nations in Canada today, for first nations and all Canadians—that's the $6 billion a year spent in Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Certainly one would assume that the more treaties we solve, the fewer dollars we'll have to spend on a government bureaucracy that's set up solely to work with first nations and deal with first nations, if we want to use that term. So our costs should be less over time, hopefully to the point where the bureaucracy of DIAND will be less and may be able to be under Revenue or under some other department, instead of having a department of its own.

Maybe that won't work. Maybe we'll find out that we'll always need to have a department, but the bottom line is that the cost can be absorbed and the cost today, the $6 billion a year we spend on first nations in Canada, will go down over time.

• 1515

Is that the way the business community sees it, or do you think that'll just totally get out of hand and continue to escalate?

Mr. David McLean: I think the answer is that it should go down. It's a good business deal. If we can see costs go down and revenues go up, we're going to get taxation. Yes, we're going to make an investment, and I see the Nisga'a treaty as an investment by Canadians, not a cost. Once that investment is made, we won't need as much federal government expenditure, the costs should go down, and we should get a return on that investment, which is taxes.

As you know, CNR was privatized, and at one point we were getting subsidies from the government. Today, we're producing about $500 million year in taxes to the government and we're not a drain at all. That's the kind of business we want to do in this country, and I think the Nisga'a can do that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It will certainly take time and a period of integration, but I think any reasonably thinking Canadian will have to look at this treaty, understand the parameters of it and, at the end of it, see that we're going to give the Nisga'a the economic tools to deal with their own lives. We're going to cut the costs at the end of the day to the Government of B.C. and the Government of Canada.

A lot has been said here today that this is the first treaty, there are 50 more to go, and we can't afford it. But on the basis of the process itself and diminishing costs, the return will be there at the end of the process. We may have to pay now, but at the end of the process every Canadian citizen will be ahead.

The Chair: Mr. Stothert, go ahead.

Mr. Winston Stothert: Quite a few years ago, Jake Epp, whom you probably know, was very briefly the Minister of Indian Affairs. I remember him telling me then that about 70% of the funds were spent on administration. I know there's been tremendous improvement since then and that much more of the funds have gone to the aboriginal groups to do their own administration. At that time, his desire was to eliminate the Department of Indian Affairs. My own brief supports that, of course.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I've heard this comment made a lot by first nations, and I think it's something we should all remember every once in a while. Nobody is ever completely right or completely wrong, but certainly most first nations would tell you they never asked anyone to look after them. They were always willing to look after themselves. We have to find a way to encompass that in the greater fabric of Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

It remains for me to thank our witnesses. We certainly feel strongly that you've contributed to this discussion today.

I will suspend so we can change witnesses. We will start in five minutes, which will be a few minutes early, because one of our witnesses has to leave a little early to catch a plane. So instead of having a 15-minute suspension, I'm going to have a five-minute suspension.

I just want to say how much I appreciate how courteous the audience has been in the last part of this meeting. Thank you.

• 1519

• 1530

The Chair: This meeting is back in order.

We have our last set of witnesses for the afternoon. We welcome you, Mr. Ken Georgetti, from the Canadian Labour Congress, as its president, and with you you have Mr. John Shields. Then from the British Columbia Federation of Labour we have the president, Mr. Jim Sinclair, and—I'm sorry, the name again...?

Ms. Angela Schira (Secretary-Treasurer of the British Columbia Federation of Labour): Angela Schira, secretary-treasurer of the B.C. federation.

The Chair: Angela Schira. Can we get some name place cards in front of people, please.

Mr. Georgetti, would you like to start? What we're going to do is have approximately 10- to 15-minute opening statements from both of you and then after that we'll go into our rounds of questioning. We understand one of you has to leave at 4:15, so we'll have some questions before you leave and then ask your colleague Mr. Georgetti to stay.

This is a furtherance of our labour discussion, which we started earlier in the week in Prince George, and so we're going to finish today's hearings with a discussion, we hope, on the impact of labour in British Columbia and in Canada.

Mr. Ken Georgetti (President, Canadian Labour Congress): I'm going to ask Mr. Sinclair, with your indulgence, to go first. He's the fellow who has to catch the plane.

The Chair: No problem.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I was the president of the federation while we negotiated the Nisga'a agreement here. After Mr. Sinclair speaks, we'll add some comments and then give the chair—

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jim Sinclair (President, British Columbia Federation of Labour): Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the committee about Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, on behalf of the B.C. Federation of Labour. At the outset I would like to thank the committee for making it possible for Mr. Georgetti, me, John, and Angie to be witnesses here in Vancouver.

Contrary to reports I've seen here in the press that it is the opponents of the treaty who are not able to appear before you, several labour organizations that have expressed their desire to support the bill could not be accommodated. I would strongly urge all members of Parliament to make sure that when committees travel outside of Ottawa as many people as possible have the opportunity to make their views known to you.

The B.C. Federation of Labour is a membership organization made up of more than 40 affiliated unions representing over 700 locals, and it speaks on behalf of over 450,000 working people in B.C. The federation is the single largest organization representing workers' interests in the province. First and foremost, our role is to stand up for the interests of our members, the men and women who live and work in communities throughout this province. The federation has been intensely involved in the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee since it was first established by the Vander Zalm government over a decade ago.

We supported the negotiation of a treaty with the Nisga'a people and are strong proponents of the B.C. Treaty Commission process, because we believe that treaties are the best way to achieve the certainty we need for our province. And by certainty we mean protecting and enhancing the economic security and the well-being of our members' families and communities.

The labour movement of British Columbia has a lengthy history of supporting the aspirations of aboriginal people for greater economic and social justice. The relationship with the Nisga'a people is particularly strong. During the many long years that the Nisga'a were at the negotiating table, our federation established a positive relationship with the Nisga'a negotiating team, and in particular with Chief Joseph Gosnell. We made sure our membership had the opportunity to hear directly from the Nisga'a people both at our conventions and at conferences. We were pleased to have Chief Gosnell speak at our annual convention following the ratification of the agreement in principle, and to honour him last year on the signing of the final agreement.

The offices and executive council of the federation support Bill C-9, because we believe the Nisga'a Final Agreement achieves the goals of the labour movement for fairness and equality both for our members and for the Nisga'a people.

Last fall the executive council approved an extensive tour of the province by then president, Ken Georgetti, and secretary-treasurer, Angie Schira, who are both here with me, to talk frankly with local trade unions about the final agreement. At tab 3 is the resolution that was passed unanimously by over 1,200 delegates to our convention last year supporting the Nisga'a Final Agreement. The resolution was adopted following an extensive debate on the floor of the convention.

• 1535

Individual rank and file members from the north and the lower mainland, from private resource sector and public sector unions, aboriginal and non-aboriginal people representing all the great diversity of our province felt passionately about the agreement. Our support of this agreement is grounded firmly in the democratic expression of support from our membership.

The labour members of the treaty advisory committee and the Kitimat-Skeena regional advisory committee were involved in the most extensive consultation process ever undertaken in this province. For example, the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, or TNAC as it's known here in the province, met on average five days a month in the six months preceding the conclusion of the agreement. In addition, more than 250 consultations and public meetings were held concerning the Nisga'a negotiations between 1991 and 1998.

I would encourage the federal government to consult that extensively with Canadians on other important issues such as the World Trade Organization negotiations.

The Nisga'a Final Agreement is the result of one of the toughest and longest negotiations ever undertaken in Canada. The final agreement must be looked at as a whole, just as one would examine a collective agreement reached between a union and its employer. In my view, this agreement strikes an important balance between collective and individual rights. A collective agreement is reached by a union and an employer to provide the framework for the protection and enhancement of rights of individual workers.

Just like collective bargaining, treaty negotiations do not result in every party getting everything they put on the table. Indeed, Chief Gosnell has said they didn't satisfy every Nisga'a member and they can't satisfy every British Columbian, nor should they have to. But in another parallel to labour negotiations, our representatives from the federal and provincial governments have had to ensure that certain principles fundamental to British Columbians and to Canadians were enshrined in the treaty.

The most critical of those principles was to achieve certainty. Certainty was also a central goal of the labour movement. The legal technique used to achieve certainty is effective and preferable to the old techniques of extinguishment or surrender.

As Angela Schira, the secretary-treasurer of the federation, has said, imagine a union bargaining committee going to the membership and saying that to get this collective agreement we surrendered our rights. It's not imaginable.

Turning to Bill C-9, clause 7 sets out the impact of the agreement and the legislation on aboriginal rights and title. The federation supports the language in the final agreement and believes that the bill reflects the language effectively. It is in the interests of us all, particularly since the Marshall decision on fishing in the Maritimes, to have clearly defined rights set out in treaties instead of undefined aboriginal rights.

The preamble to the bill contains a strong statement about reconciliation between aboriginal people and the crown. The federation has long supported the important principles set out in the preamble. In particular, we believe negotiation is the best way to establish a new relationship between aboriginal people and other Canadians. In addition, the preamble clearly states that the Constitution is not altered by this agreement, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the Nisga'a government and that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada.

Clause 16 of the bill is one of the most important results of decades of negotiation to reach this treaty. The Indian Act will not apply to Nisga'a people. This removes an oppressive remnant of colonial attitudes from the lives of the people of the Nass Valley. With the conclusion of this treaty, the social and economic prospects for the Nisga'a people and for all people of the northwest are greatly improved.

The labour law provisions of the final agreement are fully supported by the federation. When the agreement in principle was signed in 1996, the federation was concerned about the potential ability for the Nisga'a to makes laws dealing with labour relations. The final agreement in chapter 11, on Nisga'a government, paragraph 67, states clearly that nothing in the agreement affects the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments over labour relations, employment standards and occupational health and safety.

The federation worked with the Nisga'a to arrive at language both of us support surrounding the duty to accommodate Nisga'a culture, as set out in paragraphs 64 and 66 of chapter 11. We urge the federal government to maintain the position at all treaty tables that there be no change in the jurisdiction over labour relations.

I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to address you. I would be happy to answer any questions after my colleagues have spoken.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Georgetti.

• 1540

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Thank you. I am the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. We represent 2.4 million working people across the country.

I'd like to start by thanking then Premier Vander Zalm for starting this process. I'd like to thank the members of this committee for giving me the opportunity to make a representation here today. I want to thank the Nisga'a people for their patience in coming to our long-awaited and long-overdue settlement of their just and honourable claims to their dignity and their humanity.

I want to inform you that in June of this year as well, our Canadian Labour Congress, with 2,500 delegates, in Toronto unanimously endorsed the Nisga'a agreement and encouraged the Canadian Labour Congress to encourage this government in Ottawa to endorse this agreement as well and finally put to rest the claims of the people of the Nass Valley.

Before becoming president, I was a member of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee since its inception. As Jim Sinclair has said, we have been involved in one of the most extensive consultation processes ever undertaken in the province of British Columbia on this issue. I echo Jim's comments that if we had had this kind of consultation around NAFTA and the MAI, things would look a lot different in Canada today, especially around our water resources.

But we were at the table, whether in the northwest or in Vancouver. We stood up for economic security. We stood up for certainty and the well-being of our members and their families and their communities.

In our view, the Nisga'a agreement achieves all of those goals of the labour movement. It achieves fairness and equality for our members, but more importantly, it achieves fairness and equality for the Nisga'a people.

The treaty gets rid of the uncertainty, and without this treaty, I think the uncertainty you heard cited by the previous witnesses and by many investors with whom I come into contact is seen by them as a barrier to their participation in the economy of British Columbia. I don't think we will see any major investments in areas where the uncertainty of a land claim today exists. You were probably reminded of the uncertainty that exists now on the issue of tenure in the Okanagan Valley with regard to the right to harvest our timber resources.

Not to belabour this point but get on with your program, we want to see as well the Canadian government acknowledge what it seems the people who came before us have been unwilling to acknowledge, that for too long, for too many years, and for way too many of the wrong reasons, the native people in this province have not been treated in a way we would find acceptable today. I think we have to acknowledge that, and we have to move forward very quickly as a people and as a civilized society to say to these just claims of the aboriginal and the first nations people of our country that we recognize that and we wish to resolve it, not in the courts, not through confrontation, but through processes of negotiation and making of treaties.

I've now had the opportunity to travel in the world a little bit, and it seems that maybe sometimes we're too close to it, but frankly, the fact that we have not settled the claims of the first nations people of our country stands as an embarrassment to us as Canadians when we talk to people in South Africa and other nations about the rights of minorities in their countries.

I encourage you to take this thing back and have the referendum in Parliament, by the people we've elected to represent us in every region of this country, to endorse unanimously this fine and just treaty to a very patient and honourable people.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Are there further presentations at the table?

Mr. John Shields (Past President, B.C. Government and Service Employees Union): Madam Chair, my name is John Shields, and I am the president emeritus of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. I'm pleased to be a guest of my colleague Jim Georgetti and Brother Jim Sinclair in this presentation because of my long involvement with the issue of the Nisga'a negotiations.

Like Brother Georgetti, I was an original appointee to the B.C. treaty advisory committee and have been not only involved in the consultations around the Nisga'a treaty, but an adviser to both Canada and British Columbia on the general direction of the development of the treaty process here in British Columbia. I'm here to add my own voice, and the voices of the 60,000 women and men of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, in urging the committee to pass this treaty.

• 1545

As a Canadian, I am familiar with the fact that treaties have been struck with aboriginal communities across Canada, but only a smattering here in British Columbia, and that we are dealing with the first modern treaty. Consequently there are issues being raised about treaty-making that I think call into question the whole honour of the crown in establishing just and honourable relations with aboriginal people, and we would like to see that put to rest.

The absence of a treaty with the Nisga'a people has created doubt and uncertainty on the one hand, and poverty and hardship on the other, and we believe it's time to put an end to both. Like so many in British Columbia, we feel it is a matter of social justice. We believe it's part and parcel of the Canadian way to negotiate to the point where we reach a compromise that all can live with, and it is our view that a negotiated solution is always the best solution.

For 30 years, I have been involved in negotiating with the Government of British Columbia, and I'm familiar with and respect the negotiating skills of B.C.'s negotiators. Over the last eight years, as a member of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, I have become familiar with Canada's negotiators and realize they too are very skilled and very responsible individuals. The representatives of the two governments were not passive responders to a Nisga'a agenda, but had very clear agendas to bring to the process of treaty-making. They took advantage of skilled research, and they had at the table very skilled, first-rank negotiators.

I'm also familiar with the Nisga'a leadership. I have been the guest of the Nisga'a people at general assemblies, and I've listened to the debate among the elders and among the leaders, who also had clear agendas, able researchers, and first-rank negotiators.

For 20 years the negotiating process took place. What we see in the bill before the House of Commons is not an accident. It is the result of careful compromise, honed discussions around the interests of Canada, the interests of British Columbia, and the interests of the Nisga'a people.

I think what is missing in the public debate, among the critics of the treaty, is respect for the integrity and the work done by all parties to reach an agreement acceptable to Canada, acceptable to British Columbia, and acceptable to the Nisga'a people. That agreement rests on rights, rights affirmed by the court about the aboriginal inherent right to self-government, about the right and title collectively to the land. What the treaty does is take those theoretical rights and translate them into practical, everyday, concrete responsibilities.

I call on the House of Commons to recognize and respect the aims of all three parties, because this treaty has a number of gains for all three parties. It achieves an independence of the Nisga'a from the Indian Act. It changes the tax-free status. It puts an end to long-term dependency and obligation, and there is a recognition that the charter and the laws of general application will prevail in Nisga'a governance. The resource allocation to enable self-sufficiency, the protection of cultural distinctiveness, and an end to third-world status within Canada are all gains in this treaty that must be recognized and appreciated.

I've heard Chief Joe Gosnell talk about the Nisga'a negotiating their way into Canada and at the same time avoiding the cultural assimilation and the extinction of the Nisga'a as a people, which has been long cherished as a goal.

• 1550

I am saddened by the events that took place here today in British Columbia, in Vancouver. I have a feeling that the dark forces of racism are those who would deny rights to aboriginal people, that there are forces that would stir up fear and ignorance and inflame divisions within our society rather than do what the treaty-making process has done, which is to find ways of healing, of creating unity, and of enabling all peoples to move forward together.

We respect the crown and we know that the crown has respect for the highest standards of human behaviour. We urge the quick passage of the treaty through the House of Commons.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I will start the first round with Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you, John Shields. We used to be in the same union. As I pointed out to you earlier, in the beginning in our union, I was a shop steward.

There's going to be a government as a result of this deal. There's going to be a government so there are going to be employees. Do you have hopes of being able to bring in the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union to form some locals in the Nisga'a area? If so, can you point out where in this deal there is enabling legislation or a recognition that this is possible? We'd really like that for the record.

The Chair: Mr. Shields, go ahead.

Mr. John Shields: Thank you, Chair.

As Mr. Georgetti said and as Mr. Sinclair said in his presentation, there is an agreement that the laws of general application apply. In other words, the labour codes of Canada or British Columbia, whichever is appropriate, will apply to the issue of successorship. It is our understanding that in the treaty there is the opportunity for the new Nisga'a government, when they are ready to enact that government, to assume certain responsibilities that are currently the responsibility of British Columbia

From discussions with the Nisga'a tribal leadership, we are confident that they are respectful of and intend to honour the laws that will allow for their employees to be unionized. It does not require any additional documentation within the treaty because of the honouring of the laws of British Columbia and Canada with respect to labour relations.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I'd just like to add that I understand your general hope, but we've heard a lot of those kinds of broad-brush generalities before. Maybe you can come back later with some further advice about just how, by looking at the actual wording, that could be so. We've heard a variety of interpretations about various sections. We've had similar explanations in the broad generality—that certainly it should be this way and should be that way—yet when you get right down to it, it isn't quite so. Maybe upon further advice, you could give us some information. Maybe Mr. Georgetti has some additional in that regard.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I certainly do. Our legal counsels have looked at the agreement in detail and assure us that the application of the Canada Labour Code where the jurisdiction is federal, and the application of the provincial labour code where the jurisdiction is provincial, will apply.

We have, however, in the agreement, built in what we call the “duty to accommodate” so that the application of the labour codes does not clash with the cultural affairs and the cultural independence of the Nisga'a people. We're very satisfied that the general application of organizing law, as it exists outside of the Nisga'a land, will exist inside the Nisga'a land as well.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay.

That's fine for now.

The Chair: Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Madam Chair, I believe that today's meeting settles the matter with respect to the consultation in British Columbia. Before entering politics, I worked for 20 years in the labour movement. I was with the CNTU in Montreal, in Quebec.

• 1555

I would say that today we have a very broad union-management agreement. We have heard a number of businessmen and union representatives, including the large Canadian Labour Congress, and very few of these people spoke out against the agreement. The only ones that we haven't heard are those who have been in the room since early this morning, but that is about all.

Mr. Duceppe asked me to give his regards to Brother Georgetti and Brother Sinclair. I imagine there is a connection there somewhere. I was told about the fact that the unions had become quite open to the self-determination of peoples, a union philosophy that I share. During the week, I was forced, on a number of occasions, to ask the witnesses who appeared before us if they agreed that there were Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Madam Chair, I'm sure I won't have to put that question to the union representatives who are with us today, since I believe that they are very open to that. That was the message that Mr. Duceppe wanted me to convey.

I would now like to ask you a question. I know that when union members want to attempt to negotiate something, they must first consult with their membership. I must admit that I have never seen a stronger democracy than that which can be found in a union. I say that quite candidly and quite naively. I have been a member of Parliament for six years now. They say that it is the height of democracy, but as far as I am concerned, it is the unions that truly represent democracy.

If you agree today to quickly pass this agreement, it's because you feel that the consultations on the treaty have been sufficient. I look at how things were done in the British Columbia Legislature. It was the longest debate in the history of that legislature.

What we have been doing here for the past week was done quite intensively in British Columbia. Having read the minutes of those consultations, I can state that what I have heard this week is exactly the same as what was said in the Legislative Assembly. Personally, I have learned nothing new.

I would like to congratulate you for your presentation and for your acceptance of the self-determination of peoples. This is very much appreciated. I would simply like you to explain why you feel that there have been enough consultations. As this is a broad union-management agreement, do you think that today's meeting should put an end to it? I think that we have heard just about everything and that a consensus has almost been reached.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead please, Mr. Sinclair.

Mr. Jim Sinclair: Well, Brother, yes, I believe this has probably been the most hotly debated issue in this province for some time. In the labour movement we had consultations that went around the province. We met in many communities and invited people to come and debate the issue.

I would be a liar if I said everybody agreed with us. They don't. There are people who still oppose this treaty, and some of them are members of unions, but the treaty also went to our convention, where over 1,500 people—about that many come to our conventions—voted for this, because at the root of it, I think, we believe it's time to move forward in this province in the interests of working people, and treaties are in the interests of working people. We believe that if we don't create a way to repair what has happened in the past, to turn the corner in history, as we would say, then we will continue to go backwards and drive our cars looking in rearview mirrors.

What the Nisga treaty allows us to do is to go forward. It doesn't solve it all. It doesn't mean that the day we sign this the economic problems facing aboriginal people are solved—nor will the economic problems facing working people be solved. But it does give us the terms so that we can be equals and face those problems together.

I think that's the challenge that this treaty allows us to move forward on. The alternative, which is to have no treaty and to continue in the same way we have for the last hundred years, is no alternative for the working people of this province.

The Chair: Mr. Georgetti.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: I wonder if I could comment on that in terms of your question about openness. This is a process that has gone on through three premiers in this province—as quickly as we can change them. Nonetheless, it has been a long process, and it has been open and transparent. As Jim said, not just the labour movement but other bodies—business, community and others—have had extensive consultation at briefings, in legal interpretations, and in all of that.

• 1600

If not this, then what? That's the question we have to ask ourselves, because I don't think there's another option. It's not as if there's a whole bunch of other options. This is about the best you can get.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Davies, please.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much.

First of all I'd like to welcome Brother Georgetti back to Vancouver and B.C. I have to say we're very happy he's in Ottawa as another voice from B.C. in the nation's capital.

I very much appreciated the comments all of you made today, because the leadership of the B.C. Federation of Labour in this process you have laid out today is very significant.

When I think of the unions I know in my community and in Vancouver generally, union membership is made up of all kinds of diverse peoples of different political viewpoints. In listening to you speak about the process the federation went through, which was guided by the leadership but was very much a grassroots process, I was particularly interested to hear how Angie, with Brother Georgetti, actually toured the province to consult with different locals and members about the process. That's real evidence of democracy at work—a participatory democracy.

So I really want to congratulate the B.C. Federation of Labour and the CLC for never doubting, never flinching, and always standing up in public and being very visible in solidarity with aboriginal rights in this country, even when it's been unpopular to do so.

It's great to have you here today.

My question has to do with this issue of democracy and how we judge it. As you know, there have been many calls by the opposition to hold a referendum, and in fact this now becomes the great clarion call, the rallying point: “This has to stand the test of democracy; it has to go to referendum.”

This is a question that must be answered. I noticed in your resolution it was briefly mentioned, but I would like you to elaborate a little bit about your perspective of what it is when we talk about a participatory democracy. Is it something that just comes down to a yes or no vote? We heard former Premier Harcourt this morning talking about the logistics if there were a referendum, such as who would vote.

The parties involved negotiated in good faith. That in itself was democratic. But it is something that does need to be answered, so I'd be interested in your views about the substance of what happens when minority rights are held up to a referendum by whatever majority we choose to cast the net over, whether it's the whole of Canada or British Columbia or whoever it might be.

It is something people get really drawn into. They believe if that doesn't happen, somehow it is anti-democratic. Yet it seems to me everything that's brought us to this point has been fundamentally an open, transparent, democratic process. I don't know what else could have been done.

If you have any views on the referendum issue, I'd really like to hear them.

Mr. Jim Sinclair: On the question of the referendum and decision-making process in the Canadian context, I am not a fan of U.S.-style politics and referendums. We have elections where we elect people to represent us. They have difficult jobs to do. They sat down at a table with another group of people and negotiated an agreement, a treaty.

It's their job now to take that treaty and endorse it in a Parliament where they're elected. That's the process we're involved in, not taking it out and having a massive vote across the whole country about this issue. It's not been our history, and it would be rather bizarre in the extreme. We would start this new history, when in fact we're dealing with aboriginal people and trying to resolve a problem that's existed for a hundred years.

If we and our members negotiated a collective agreement with governments, as we do all the time, and if after they'd sat at the table and made the agreement they then turned around and took it out to everybody in the province to vote on whether or not we should have a collective agreement, I think our members would be very upset at that, and I would think the people in this province would be upset at that. So that's the way it is.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

You have about thirty seconds if you wish.

Ms. Libby Davies: Do you have any other comments, Mr. Shields?

• 1605

Mr. John Shields: As somebody who negotiates with government, I think it's important for the process to know at the beginning how something is going to be ratified. It was established inside the treaty the way in which the agreement was to be ratified: the Nisga'a people would ratify it, the Parliament of British Columbia would ratify it, and the Parliament of Canada would ratify it.

Jim Sinclair made the point that was echoing in my mind as you asked the question. If we had to negotiate a collective agreement with British Columbia knowing that in the final analysis that agreement would be ratified by referendum, the whole nature of the negotiating process would be different. There wouldn't be much likelihood of ever reaching a collective agreement that would be satisfactory to the whole population. It would be eternally frustrating.

So we negotiate with British Columbia in right of the crown. The crown ratifies that agreement and our members ratify that agreement. That's the way we understand collective agreements to work, and it's the way in which the people who are attached to and part of the agreement understood the ratification process going in. It would be unfair negotiation to change that process now.

Ms. Angela Schira: Can I just make a quick comment?

The Chair: Certainly.

Ms. Angela Schira: The question back would be, where do you draw the line then? If you call for a referendum on this issue, where do you draw the line and where do you say you don't hold a referendum on, say, the budget process that's taking place; or on WTO, as Ken Georgetti mentioned a minute ago; or on free trade or a number of other issues? It is not basically our system of government to have a referendum on any select issue.

Why would there be a call? I mean, I know why, but why would there be a call for a referendum on this issue? As Jim mentioned, we have elected people to represent us on these issues. The democratic process still takes place in Canada and in British Columbia. If in fact people do not like what is accepted in Parliament, they have the opportunity to vote people out.

So we do have that system in place. That's one of the reasons we don't support a referendum on this issue.

A voice: The people want a vote.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, please go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to make one comment on the statement Angela Schira just made about the referendum. I think most of us recognize that it's just not practical to take all issues in Canada to referendum. There are some issues we do have referendums on, but on this particular issue and on several other issues I've heard the official opposition call for a referendum on in Canada, I would go so far as to say if they lost that referendum, then the process would still be inadequate, and they would move on to find some other way to fight and rail against the inadequacies and the inequalities and the injustice done by the referendum process.

Sooner or later, someone has to take responsibility. What better group than the Parliament of Canada, who are duly elected from all parts of this country to represent people, who will either be elected or not elected in another general election in this country, and allow democracy—true democracy—to work?

I have a question, and it's an important question to me. In your amended composite resolution in the brief you handed out—and I realize it was voted on at your general assembly, and I believe you said it was passed unanimously—in the fifth paragraph you say:

Be it further resolved that the Federation condemn the opponents of the Nisga'a Final Agreement and the treaty process such as provincial Liberal leader Gordon Campbell and the Fisheries Survival Coalition for attempting to stop the treaty through the courts.

My question is specifically about the Fisheries Survival Coalition. I saw that group on the east coast after the Marshall decision. There were a number of things wrong with the Marshall decision, but that's not what we're here to debate. However, I thought at that time they claimed—and I must have been mistaken—to represent a union of fishermen in B.C. They stated they represented 6,000 fishermen or 6,000 boats in British Columbia, which was a large number.

• 1610

I represent a large fishery riding. We have 2,000 boats in the South Shore riding in Nova Scotia, and a vibrant fishing industry. It's not as vibrant as it once was, but we're surviving.

Anyway, what is the background of the Fisheries Survival Coalition? Do they speak for organized labour in B.C.? How many members do they represent, and how many boats?

Mr. Jim Sinclair: Well, I can't answer all those questions, but I can give you a bit of the background.

I've spent 18 years in the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, so we have a long history of being in this industry and working with people in the industry.

The Fisheries Survival Coalition doesn't represent the UFAWU. There are members of the UFAWU who are members of the Fisheries Survival Coalition and very active in it. I think you have to understand the backdrop to this. The Fisheries Survival Coalition was born out of a failed policy of the Liberal government, called the aboriginal fisheries strategy, which was brought into the Fraser River and opposed unanimously by the fishing industry. It was outside the treaty process. It is the very reason that the labour movement supports a treaty process. It's because they pieced off the fisheries and started to reallocate fisheries without any consideration to what the implications of that would be. So the industry was very active in fighting it, and that's where it was born.

The UFAWU, as you probably heard yesterday, has taken the position that the treaty of the Nisga'a, as it is now outlined, has been agreed to by the union, and it is on record, at a convention, of supporting the treaty process and solving this. It doesn't mean they're not tough issues for all of us. But I do say that the Fisheries Survival Coalition was really born out of the Fraser River. It had nothing to do with the Nisga'a when it was first born. That was an ill-thought-out policy of the federal government that is actually still not supported by the fishing industry or the union.

The Chair: You have more time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know where this time is coming from, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It's just that you're not used to it, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We're not used to it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just don't know what to ask.

The Chair: Talk, Mr. Keddy. You have only a minute.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, don't waste the time, right? Certainly, and I'll try to ask a quick question. You've answered it already, but I think it deserves to be enlarged upon even more.

The opponents of this treaty are continuing to say that public consultation did not occur, that the grassroots British Columbian never had a chance to have any say, never had public meetings, never had a governmental process, and apparently never had representation from their MLA—I'm not certain of all the things. Could you enlighten us a bit more on the public consultation process?

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Certainly. As we said, as the negotiations were going forward, there was a Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee made up of the Fisheries Survival Coalition representatives, and representatives from small and big business, labour, communities, and environmental groups who were regularly briefed on the progress of negotiations and the positions taken by the various levels of government. After that process was over, the agreement was promulgated to the communities.

We took our side of that, sent the agreement out in a summary form, and then Angela and I toured the province and met with representatives of labour unions and labour councils to get their input and answer their questions. We brought our land claims specialist, who is still on our staff, with us to answer those questions. And it culminated in a referendum, if you will, at our convention.

We also took the position.... I want to answer the question in a sideways fashion. The reason the opponents of these negotiations and the advocates for referendum don't get our support—we are an organization that is used to taking the results of our work to our membership for support by majority—is that this Nisga'a agreement does not alter our Constitution. It's part of our Constitution and it doesn't alter it.

Secondly, this isn't the first time we've had a settlement of a land claim in Canada, and why now do we call on this particular treaty, the first one in British Columbia, to be subject of a specious call for a referendum?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Reilly, please, for five minutes.

• 1615

Mr. John O'Reilly: I was almost going to give my time back to Gerald. He seems to want to get going there.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing.

I don't want Ms. Davies to have heart palpitations, but I'm a former chapel chairman and in fact a member of the Peterborough-Lindsay local of the International Typographical Union. A Liberal! By the way, my trade is as a linotype operator and mechanic, and that can now be found in just about every museum under “redundant trades”.

But I have some interest, brothers and sisters, in some of your comments in your addendum, particularly in your executive council report on page 29. There are comments in there by Bill Vander Zalm and Gordon Campbell, who would appear almost to come from a very shallow gene pool, when an election victory has to be available at any cost—I'm speaking as a union member now, I hope, when I say that. But the way everyone's going here with provincial Liberal/Reform leader Gordon Campbell, and now provincial Reform leader Vander Zalm, there's going to be nobody playing the left wing. So if you have any hockey positions available, I'll take a left wing.

The most troubling thing about this report—and perhaps you could dwell on that a bit—is in your statement, which I'll quote:

It is especially important now for the labour movement to discuss the Nisga'a Agreement everywhere we can since David Black, who publishes 60 community newspapers in BC, has given instructions to his editors to publish only editorials opposing the settlement.

If you were here earlier, you would have heard me attacking the press, because I couldn't find, in my former life as a member of the press...in a small way, by the way. I didn't do anything bad as reporter, just a few council meetings. It's troublesome to me that the press would have 60 community newspapers instructed not to print anything, or only to print bad news, by the sound of it. So when I read that, and heard it earlier.... When I came out here, I had a very jaundiced opinion of that. I went around, as I said, to all the places: Smithers, Prince George, Terrace, and Port Hardy—I think we went to Port Hardy twice. Port Hardy is Indian for “no hot water in the shower”. But we had a good time. Somebody told me to lighten it up a bit.

I was told even in Terrace that I had been brought there kicking and screaming and that I didn't want to come to B.C., and I said at that time—and I'll say it again—that one bad day in B.C. is better than five good days in Ottawa. The whole process, by the way, all the screaming, yelling, the attacking, even the racists attacks on my colleagues and threats on me, has only strengthened my resolve now to speak in favour of the treaty.

I understand Monday is an opposition day in Parliament; the Reform have it and they've chosen this subject to speak on. I certainly want to speak on it and vote in favour of it, no matter what I hear from now on, because everything I've heard, as I've stated earlier, is very jaundiced, narrow-minded, racist, contentious, and shallow. And unfortunately, a lot of it comes from the press, from what I have seen.

Perhaps you could comment on that, if I haven't run you right out of time.

The Chair: Go ahead, please, for 45 seconds.

Mr. Jim Sinclair: Welcome to B.C. As a former ITU member who worked at the press as well, for my first union, I can say that we have deep concerns about how the press uses these issues, or very big political issues, and how they don't put both sides in the paper.

What we've experienced in this province around this issue is the ethics. Remember what those were? We used to have ethics. We had people who disagreed with things, but you put both sides in the paper. That's how you handled the issues. You owned the newspaper, you made the money, but you had a responsibility to let it reflect the democratic debate in the community.

• 1620

What we see more and more is that this whole ethic has disappeared. Partly it was the result of the failure of anybody to control the monopolization of the industry. Now we have two people owning most of the daily papers in this whole province, because we have two Blacks; we have Conrad too.

Unfortunately, that has skewed this debate. It's simplified this debate and made it not the kind of healthy debate that you'd want in a society. I can concur with you that it is very difficult when that kind of stuff happens.

He later recanted on that position, but I can assure you, as somebody who used to work in daily newspapers, in this province we used to get letters telling us what to print and what not to print. That was 20 years ago in Conrad Black's papers.

The Chair: The time is up now.

Mr. Jim Sinclair: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Sinclair really is leaving right now. Thank you very much for your presentation, and we hope you catch your plane.

Mr. John Finlay: Remember, two Blacks don't make a White.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: You're going to make the chair really laugh.

Mr. Forseth, go ahead please. Five minutes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I was reading some other documents. I think I'm going to pass at this moment. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay for five minutes, then.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Not to be outdone by my good friend to the right here, I also spent three years working for a union: the OSSTF. It's one of those powerful teachers' unions in Ontario and it too was democratic.

Also, the county seat in Oxford County, where I represent 100,000 people, is the home of Bob White, who was allowed by a former colleague of mine to leave school at 14 because he didn't really like going to school. The old guidance counsellor sent him down to Weldwood plywood and he got a job down there. Some older worker took him under his wing and took him to a union meeting. I think he learned all of what he knows and a great deal more from going to those union meetings and he became very interested, and of course now we know. I enjoy it when I meet him in Ottawa in the aboriginal committee room and we talk about things.

I want to say that as a windup to our week, this is great. My friend Mr. O'Reilly sort of let the cat out of the bag on the first day of the hearings and he's been pilloried for it ever since. I think we'd have to admit—I certainly would.... They wanted me to stay home too, but I said no, I'm vice-chair, I'm going. It has been a good experience. I think we may go back with some better understanding of western alienation and where it may rise from and so on.

We have been addressed largely by people like you who work intimately...and who have a real stake and interest in the province and how we do things. It's been very enlightening. I was beginning to think a little after the first three or four days that maybe we weren't really in Canada and that maybe the forces of darkness, as someone rightly said this afternoon, had sort of taken over.

A voice: And they're right at that stage.

Mr. John Finlay: Usually the loudest noise is not necessarily the feeling of the silent majority.

In your letter, in your address to us, you said on page 5:

In addition, the preamble clearly states that the Constitution is not altered by this Agreement, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Nisga'a Government and that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada.

That is what we thought when we read the agreement. That is what our researchers and our legal experts tell us. That is what the briefings have told us. That is what Chief Gosnell told me at a breakfast meeting in Ottawa, so I'm inclined to believe it. I find it amazing that the opposition somehow, either by misreading the English language or simply by being less than candid, claim these things aren't so.

• 1625

It also says:

Section 16 of the Bill is one of the most important results of the decades of negotiation to reach this treaty. The Indian Act will not apply to the Nisga'a people. This removes an oppressive remnant of colonial attitudes from the lives of the people of the Nass Valley. With the conclusion of this treaty, the social and economic prospects for the Nisga'a people and for all the people of the Northwest are greatly improved.

I might add that's true for all aboriginal people across this land, as more and more treaties are negotiated.

I want to thank you very sincerely for your point of view. You have restored my faith.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Georgetti.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: It's nice to see all you former union members out here on the left coast for a change.

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, no questions; therefore, Madam, you may begin.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies: Well, this is just a brief question. I actually asked this earlier of the business representatives, because they very eloquently outlined their very detailed involvement in the process as well. You saw some of them before they left.

This treaty is going to be approved in Parliament; I don't have a doubt about that. But it's very important that we all kind of stick with the process and continue to do the education in the broader community. I was asking the business representatives how they intended to do that. They each said they thought it was very important that they continue to be visible and working with their own constituencies. I'd ask the same question of the labour movement.

This isn't just a one-shot deal. It's not a template for what's to come; it's the process that's important. It's the education that's important, particularly of union members. I would be interested to know from the B.C. Fed and from the CLC's point of view what plans you have to include this in education. Maybe Angela would like to talk for the B.C. Fed and then Ken can make comments around the CLC.

Ms. Angela Schira: The Nisga'a process that we were part of, the TNAC process, was not just for the Nisga'a. It was some of the other processes that are taking place around the province right now.

Ken and Jim were talking about the labour movement's involvement in that. We have people on committees around the province on a local basis. We are directly involved in some of the other treaty processes that are taking place right now. We do a number of continued educationals through our union schools at Harrison and a number of other areas.

So this is not the end for us. It is just a finalization of a negotiating process that had taken so many years. We applaud the Nisga'a and the provincial government and the federal government—hopefully soon—for finalizing this lengthy process. But we haven't stopped. We continue to be very involved in that process.

The Chair: Ms. Davies, go ahead if you'd like.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'd like to go to Mr. Georgetti.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: We at the Canadian Labour Congress have just initiated a dialogue with the Assembly of First Nations to start regular dealings with them, not just on the issue of land claims but on issues of particular concern to aboriginal people, underrepresentation in our labour movement being one of them. Underrepresentation in the workforce and in skilled trades is another.

Two years ago our congress passed a constitutional resolution to include, as part of our electoral process, a vice-president responsible for aboriginals. That's an aboriginal person who is a vice-president who deals directly with aboriginal issues.

In our educational programs, which we take across the country every year and through which we put about 7,000 to 9,000 labour activists, we include education on aboriginal issues, on land claims and other issues, to be more inclusive and involving of the aboriginal peoples.

Ms. Libby Davies: I was trying to figure out how to segue into the WTO and how I could connect it, but I don't think you'd allow it.

The Chair: You'd disappoint me if you didn't, Ms. Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'll keep the questioning going around the table.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Iftody, please.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much. I was going to say Madam Chair, but I'm tempted to say Sister Sue. I didn't know we were in such a—

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I've never been part of a union.

• 1630

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much for your presentations. It's quite interesting, in a province where politics are so typically divided in many instances between business and labour, that in their appearance prior to your group this afternoon a number of eminent business people from British Columbia joined with you—if not in the same words, certainly with the same spirit and intent—very deliberately to support this treaty. I think that sends to the Canadian people a very important message about the broad-based support.

On that theme, and in dealing with your membership, we heard on a few occasions, particularly when we were up north, about some dispute over the validity of the vote taken at your convention, and how many members supported the deal. Mr. Georgetti, I think it was you who said you represented some 450,000 people—I guess the whole labour movement in.... Is it Mr. Georgetti? You're shaking your head.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: That would be Mr. Sinclair.

Mr. David Iftody: Okay, I'm sorry.

It is really important to clarify that. I'm looking for something a little more concrete and specific. Can you really say you had a vote on the convention floor and 80%, 60%, or 52% of the delegates, who you are elected by to represent, supported the deal? I think this is important. I'm asking here, because I want to reiterate this in the House during the upcoming debate, about the membership you represent and incidentally, of course, 450,000 British Columbians. This is quite important for me.

Ms. Angela Schira: Right. I'm going to be very clear that the B.C Federation of Labour represents some 1,100 local unions around the province of British Columbia. Those 1,100 local unions send their delegates, their leadership, to our conventions. At the convention, when the vote took place on the Nisga'a agreement, it was a unanimous vote supporting the treaty of the Nisga'a. Ken can speak about the vote at the Canadian Labour Congress, which was different. I'm sure that wasn't the question you had in the north; it was specifically about the federation convention.

So those are the numbers.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you.

Ms. Angela Schira: We had 1,500 delegates from 1,100 local unions show up at the convention, and it was a unanimous decision.

Mr. David Iftody: We were challenged on a few occasions. I think the B.C. survival fishermen, logging interests, and some others showed up and said “Well, if you really canvassed the membership and we had a referendum on this, and so on and so forth, you wouldn't find that support.” I just wanted to go a little deeper and make sure we were on really solid ground here.

Mr. Ken Georgetti: Let me just answer that, because I was still here when that happened. We went out across the province with the results of the settlement, and we informed all of our affiliate unions that this resolution would be coming to the floor and they should debate it at their membership meetings.

Part of our constitution, in both the Canadian Labour Congress and the federation, says delegates can only come to a convention if they're elected by their own membership in their local unions. So that means no one can sit on the floor of that convention without having a mandate from the membership of their local union in their community. When that vote was taken I was in the chair, and I don't believe there were more than 10 votes opposed, out of 1,500 from the floor.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much. Those are my questions.

The Chair: Mr. Shields.

Mr. John Shields: As a president of an affiliated union to the B.C. Federation of Labour, I can elaborate a little on the process our union went through.

• 1635

After the initial tabling of the Nisga'a agreement, before it had received B.C. assent, we invited Chief Gosnell and the Nisga'a leadership to come and address our provincial executive board to answer, in detail, questions from our members, all of whom would represent people who worked in the sectors where the work was to be transferred to the Nisga'a government, as a result of the treaty. So there was very intense interest in what the treaty meant and what the local governance meant.

Having satisfied our local leadership, the issue was then referred to a convention of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, and again Chief Gosnell came and addressed the convention. The resolutions were put to the convention floor and our delegates debated the issue extensively. My recollection is that the membership of my union also voted unanimously to support the treaty.

They didn't necessarily agree with all aspects of it; they didn't necessarily feel entirely comfortable with it, from the nature of the debate. But when it came down to it, they understood what the treaty meant—that it was an agreement, a compromise, a honed give and take that made sense to them. So when the several hundred delegates from the BCGEU went to the federal convention, they had already had that grassroots debate. They had it several times within our own union, and were comfortable with the leadership adopting it and supporting the treaty.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. David Iftody: I just want to conclude by saying that with these comments of clarification, I am absolutely convinced about the broad-based level of support, with those legitimate caveats, of the union movement in British Columbia. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Ms. Schira wanted to add one final word.

Ms. Angela Schira: John is speaking as a major affiliate of the Federation of Labour in British Columbia, but I can tell you there were a number of other affiliates of the federation who had, as part of their conventions in the provinces, where they had their delegates come to their convention, endorsed the position on the Nisga'a. It wasn't just the support that was there. A lot of you have asked us about consultation, and there was major consultation internally within the labour movement, not just because we were on committees; we actually took it right down to what we call the rank and file to schools, conventions and shop stewards' training and a number of other areas. So there was major consultation.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to conclude my comments today with some clarification on a couple of other areas. I'm looking at Mr. O'Reilly when I say this, but on the three f words—and certainly the most important ones would be farming, forestry and fishing—two of those words apply in this treaty.

Certainly the forestry one has been solved, but the majority of debate I've encountered in British Columbia seems to be around fish. When I read the treaty, from my understanding of it and the expert opinions we've asked for, it very clearly states that 16% of the TAC for the Nass River will go to the Nisga'a, and 26% of the Canadian TAC will go to the Nisga'a.

We hear repeatedly from opponents of this piece of legislation that by the time we finish the treaty process in British Columbia, there won't be any salmon left, there won't be any fish left, and we're trying to settle these treaties solely with fish. I think everything in this treaty repudiates that solely and very clearly.

The unions have probably done some work in this area and looked at that. In respect to the ongoing security and viability of the resource, in particular, what do you see as the future of fish and the future of the salmon resource and the different species that make that resource up for the province of B.C.?

• 1640

Ms. Angela Schira: Before he left, Jim touched a little bit on the fish issue. It's a very complex issue, and some of the opponents on the fish issue, with the result of the aboriginal fishing strategy, which was where some of the anger started....

From our perspective, then, and from a fish...and I'm sure you heard from them yesterday. They support the Nisga'a treaty, but they're involvement in the TNAC process is that in some of the other settlements they will be indicating their opposition to a similar type of agreement to the Nisga'a, because it will have possibly an impact further down the Fraser.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The resolution or the conclusion that I continue to reach is that if you say 26% of the TAC goes to the Nisga'a, then the people who are saying that never continue that sentence to say there's 74% of the TAC out there for other groups. If you take that agreement and apply it to other areas—and the statement has been made that if you apply this to the province of B.C., there'd be no fish left—if you applied that to the province of B.C., there'd be 74% of the fish left.

We realize that on other rivers there are more user groups that need to have some of the total allowable catch.

Go ahead. If you want to get a word in edgewise, be quick.

Ms. Angela Schira: That's one of the reasons. They've looked at the different users down the river, and there may have to be a different solution in some of the other areas. It's all part of the negotiations, and the settlements in some of the other areas may be very different from what was worked out with the Nisga'a, for those very reasons. They've talked about that; we have in the labour movement.

I hope that's answered your question.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay, we're on the final round.

Mr. John Finlay: Madam Chair, the other thing I've learned today is that someone.... I'm only worried a little that my friend Paul is over there holding up the other end, and as usual, he's a reasonable person. But we have heard from the opposition that there was no opportunity for input. There was not enough information. They didn't have any meetings about this. People were caught off-guard.

I've heard nothing today but that there were INAC and TNAC and meetings, and the unions discussed it and voted on it, the business people were out talking about it, and the user groups had meetings, and so on. I guess it's because if you don't write about it in the papers we don't hear about it.

I think we've been misinformed by the representatives from B.C. in the House of Commons, and we're going to have to tell them that next week.

Ms. Libby Davies: Not all of them.

Mr. John Finlay: I'm sorry. Of course this is the first time we've been honoured by your presence, and you've been most effective.

Madam Chair, I just want to get that on the record. I'm not blaming Mr. Forseth; he hasn't said that. But certainly we heard it earlier this week.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now it remains my pleasant duty, as chair, to thank our witnesses on behalf of all the committee members. Again, this panel has given us another aspect of insight into this question that we are considering when we make our decisions on our bill, which is an implementation bill.

• 1645

I appreciate your presence here today and your very clear messages to us.

Mr. O'Reilly, you get the last word. We couldn't leave the committee without your getting the last word.

Mr. John O'Reilly: First, my friend from the Bloc Québécois has asked me to do an encore of my previous show, but I said no, I wouldn't.

Madam Chair, this is not to the witnesses, but to the staff, to our clerk, our research officers, our interpreters, and our set-up people who have gone through hell this week, following us around in buses and cars and putting up with some of our off-beat humour. They have done an incredible job and I wanted to thank them.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: John, I must say that putting this number of witnesses in one week in five locations also took an incredible amount of logistical work behind the scenes for our staff, seven days a week, prior to our getting here. I know for a fact they were working through our Ottawa time and B.C. time. So I appreciate that time too.

I do want to express my appreciation to the members of the audience who have sat through this whole day and, I hope, have benefited somewhat from these hearings today.

I do now want to inform the committee that they're working on this next week too. And because the debate is in the House on Monday on this area, we felt it best to start our meeting on Tuesday from 9:30 a.m. until noon. You will get one hour, and I want you back at 1 until 2 o'clock. Then we'll go on through Wednesday, after caucus, from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. and again Thursday, from 9:30 a.m. to noon. We have B.C. scheduled witnesses who have not been able to be accommodated this week in the schedule here in B.C. So we will continue with our witnesses and finish them next week.

At this point in time, the official notices will go out to your office. I just wanted to let you know because there was a potential that we'd have meetings on Monday. We are now starting on Tuesday.

Thank you, everyone, for your work this week. We are adjourned.