AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

º

1620

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.))

»

1720

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

»

1725

»

1730

The Chair

»

1735

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Andy Mitchell

»

1740

Mr. John Duncan

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. John Duncan

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. John Duncan

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC)

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Andy Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

»

1745

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Hon. Andy Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

»

1750

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Pat Martin

Hon. Andy Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

»

1755

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

¼

1800

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, CPC)

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

¼

1805

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

¼

1810

The Chair

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

Chief Robert Louie (Westbank First Nation)

¼

1830

The Chair

Chief Robert Louie

The Chair

Chief Robert Louie

¼

1835

¼

1840

¼

1845

¼

1850

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Micha Menczer (Legal Counsel, Westbank First Nation)

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Micha Menczer

¼

1855

Mr. Stockwell Day

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Stockwell Day

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Stockwell Day

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Micha Menczer

Chief Robert Louie

½

1900

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Micha Menczer

½

1905

Chief Robert Louie

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Micha Menczer

½

1910

Chief Robert Louie

The Chair

Mr. Walt Gray (Mayor, City of Kelowna)

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

½

1915

Mr. Micha Menczer

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Micha Menczer

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Micha Menczer

Mr. John Duncan

½

1920

The Chair

Chief Robert Louie

The Chair

Mr. Micha Menczer

½

1925

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Chief Robert Louie

Mr. Micha Menczer

½

1930

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Chief Robert Louie

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

½

1935

Mr. Clarence Clough (As Individual)

Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.)

Mr. Clarence Clough

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Chief Robert Louie

½

1940

The Chair

Mr. Walt Gray

½

1945

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell)

Ms. Kat Maurmann (As Individual)

½

1950

½

1955

The Chair

Mr. Len Novakowski (Director, Westside Electoral Area, Regional District of Central Kelowna)

¾

2000

The Chair

Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie (Director, Westside Electoral Area, Regional District of Central Kelowna)

¾

2005

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Chief Robert Louie

¾

2010

Mr. Walt Gray

The Chair

Mr. Walt Gray

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie

¾

2015

The Chair

Mr. Micha Menczer

Mr. Walt Gray

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Walt Gray

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Walt Gray

¾

2020

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Walt Gray

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Walt Gray

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Walt Gray

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. Walt Gray

Kat Maurmann

The Chair

Mr. John Reddick (As Individual)

Mr. Stockwell Day

Mr. John Reddick

¾

2025

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day

The Chair

Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Walt Gray

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Walt Gray

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 003

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1620)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): We will begin the meeting now. We have with us this afternoon the Honourable Andy Mitchell, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as Ms. Gilberte Fleischmann, Director, Self-Government Negotiations, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

    Minister, we are honoured to have you with us. Congratulations on your appointment. We know that you are a northerner who comes from a resource region and you know about resource regions in Canada, as well as aboriginal people. I wish you a great deal of success as minister.

    Pursuant to the reference of Thursday, February 12, 2004, we are considering Bill C-11, an Act to give effect to the Westbank First Nations Self-Government Agreement. I hereby begin our deliberations.

    Mr. Mitchell, you have the floor.

»  (1720)  

[English]

    Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee. My congratulations to all members of the committee as well for taking on this task, and to you, Mr. Chair, for your selection, and the co-chairs for their selection.

    I'd like to take a moment as well to thank the committee for its work in the past. I know it's been a very busy committee, and of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this is the natural resources and aboriginal affairs committee. I am a former chair of the natural resources committee, so it's nice to be home in that sense. At that time we did a lot of work together and developed the Think Rural report, something that's played an important part in moving forward with the agenda of the federal government.

    I'm going to spend a few minutes talking about some of the priorities we have in DIAND, then specifically in respect of the piece of legislation the committee is seized of. Essentially, in taking on the task as the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, I have as a key objective to close the social and economic gap that exists between aboriginal Canadians and Canadians in general. The actions we move forward with and the activities we intend to undertake as a ministry are directed towards closing that gap.

    Second, Mr. Chair, I firmly believe we need to work on establishing the relationships that involve my department. Those relationships, in the broadest sense, I think fall into three different categories. Obviously, there's a relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations, and that's critical, but there's also a relationship that exists between the Government of Canada, its provinces, and aboriginal people. I think that relationship needs to be developed. There's also the relationship within the federal government. There are 14 of my colleagues who deal with aboriginal issues in one form or another. Establishing the appropriate relationship in that respect, I think, is also a priority.

    It will come as no surprise, Mr. Chair--and you mentioned it in your introduction--that I believe it is absolutely essential that we build the capacity of first nations so they and the members of their communities can participate fully in the economic and social wealth that is Canada. I also believe, and this is very germane to this afternoon, it is an important goal to work towards self-government. I believe that too is an important objective.

    In trying to achieve those objectives, Mr. Chair, I believe there are a number of principles that need to be front and centre as we proceed forward. First is the importance, in my view, of working in a collaborative manner with first nations and other aboriginal people in trying to develop and implement the solutions that are going to help us close the gap I referred to earlier. It has to be a process of inclusiveness, as opposed to exclusiveness. I think that's an important principle that has to guide our actions.

    I think it's also important that the solutions we pursue reflect the needs of first nations people themselves. As we move forward with potential initiatives, as we move forward with particular activities, we need to ensure that they in fact reflect the needs and the aspirations of first nations people themselves. I think it's critical that we develop and build upon a shared vision and do so with respect and, in time, with the development of trust amongst ourselves.

    I firmly believe that as we proceed with our goals, it's important as a principle that we work towards those goals through a bottom-up, as opposed to a top-down, solution. I very much believe the solutions are not resident in Ottawa, they're not resident in provincial or territorial capitals, but rather they are resident in the communities themselves, and as we proceed with solutions, I think it's critical that we remember the empowerment of individual communities.

»  (1725)  

    Finally, in respect of principles, as we deal with particular policy development, we should also not forget the importance of building relationships that will allow us to deliver on those policy objectives and the structures that will allow us to do that, remembering very firmly the importance of developing those relationships.

    I think the legislation that is in front of the committee today certainly meets those objectives and abides by those principles. I believe this bill, which will give force to the agreement, will allow the people of Westbank the means to make economic and social progress in their community. It will work towards closing that gap I spoke about. I think it defines a far more appropriate and effective relationship between the Government of Canada and Westbank, and I believe it's a relationship that is far superior to one that could be had under the Indian Act. I think it will work to build capacity within the first nation, and it will allow them to pursue economic development as well as social development. Of course, it does represent an important change, and I think a positive change, in the relationship that exists between Westbank and the Government of Canada.

    In regard to the principles in this particular legislation, I think there are a number of important things to highlight. I think it does represent good collaboration. We are about to see over the next little while the conclusion of a very long process, of some 14 or 15 years, that has involved not just the first nations, but the broader community. It has involved the government structures of the broader community working together and working towards a common goal that I believe this legislation will bring to fruition.

    There have been a tremendous number, I have been advised, of both formal and informal meetings at town halls, a genuine and very concerted effort to work towards this agreement in a collaborative way, in an inclusive way, with both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. The agreement has the support of many. It has the support of local governments, it has the support of many not-for-profit organizations, it has the support of many business groups. It is seen as a positive development, as progress.

    The agreement itself--I know this is an issue that has come up and been spoken to--has a mechanism to allow for input from non-aboriginal individuals who live in the community. In fact, the first order of business called for with the implementation of this agreement is to develop the structure for that input.

    The agreement, of course, respects Canadian law and recognizes that all first nation members, like all Canadians everywhere, are subject to the Criminal Code and to the charter.

    I think the legislation also is a good example of reflecting local needs. Under this agreement, decisions will be taken locally by people who best understand the community, not by officials or politicians who are thousands of miles away from the community. Land use decisions, governance structures, resources management, language, and culture will be the responsibility of first nation law and will be able to reflect the specific needs and specific challenges of that community. I believe this allows for more effective, regionally driven partnerships, partnerships that will occur with the private sector, with local government, and with the non-aboriginal community. It reflects local needs in that it guarantees the terms and conditions under which existing lease-holders are protected.

    I think this agreement, as I said in the beginning of my comments, represents a shared vision, a willingness to work together on the part of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

»  (1730)  

    Westbank, as I suspect most of the members around this table know, is one of the most successful bands in Canada--successful, perhaps, despite the Indian Act and successful in developing this agreement. They have been seen as a fair land manager, working very diligently with non-aboriginal people. It's a community that has had economic success over a long period of time. I believe that success demonstrates the community as a trustworthy business partner and, from what I've been told, Mr. Chair, good neighbours to the broader community that surrounds it.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment to congratulate the first nations for what they are accomplishing here. I want to congratulate all the members of the community, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I want to congratulate the broader community of Kelowna and the broader community of British Columbia for their willingness to come together for what I believe is a very positive step in developing and moving forward on the relationship between Westbank and Canada.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you for your testimony about the Westbank community, Minister. I had the opportunity to visit there and it is really fantastic.

    We will now go to questions. For the first round, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Loubier, Mr. Martin and Mr. Drominsky will speak.

    Mr. Duncan.

»  (1735)  

[English]

    Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Thank you very much to the chair.

    Thank you to the minister and to Ms. Fleischmann.

    To start, I'd just like to make a small statement, and then ask a couple of questions with your expertise in the room.

    Basically, this committee, I believe, would be very well served to visit the community. Yesterday, we, as the official opposition, had concurrence with the House leader that this would occur. The government members on this committee are making that difficult.

    All I can say is this agreement deals with an agreement that is in the backyard of the official opposition. It's involving members of Parliament from the official opposition representing that entire portion of British Columbia. I want to take this opportunity to express my concern with those actions.

    Now, I have two questions. On page 62 of the agreement, provision 244 deals with financial transfer agreements. I just wanted to get the government's take on how that would kick in, in terms of the five-year renewal or relook at the contribution agreement with the Westbank First Nation. I believe that is the only provision in this entire agreement that makes reference to the mechanics of doing that.

    The other question I have is perhaps you can save a little bit of research by expressing to the committee how many previous self-government agreements we've had, in a Canadian context, that had an explicit statement of recognition of inherent right to self-government.

    That's my presentation in complete. I don't know if I can share my time with my colleague. It depends on the length of the answer, I presume.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Minister.

[English]

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: Thank you very much.

    Let me just make three quick comments, because there was one statement in there and two questions.

    As a former chair of a House of Commons committee, I intend very much, as minister, to scrupulously respect the integrity of the committee. The committee is the master of its own fate, and the committee will make decisions using the processes of committee decisions. I want to make that clear. I'm the minister and I'm here at your pleasure.

    In terms of 244, I think it's incumbent, and it states right in there, that as we enter into funding arrangements with Westbank, or, for that matter, in general terms with any party, it's absolutely essential that we have the accountability requirements in there. That's something we do right now in terms of the relationship and funding agreements we have with first nations. It'll certainly be the case with Westbank First Nation under a self-government agreement.

    There is no question that from time to time there may be others than the core agreements that we enter into. It's hard to predict in advance what types of partnerships may exist between first nations and the federal government and other partners. Obviously, ensuring that you have the necessary sets of internal controls and accountability will be critical. That's a standard necessity.

    In terms of the number of first nations under self-government legislation, the number right now is 23.

»  (1740)  

    Mr. John Duncan: Well, my question specifically was how many of them explicitly recognize the inherent right to self-government.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: This is the first stand-alone agreement in that respect.

    Mr. John Duncan: In the preambles to the Yukon agreements, let's say, or some of the northern agreements, is that not explicitly in there?

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I'm being advised that it's the first agreement under the government's inherent right policy, which is the policy under which we are proceeding forward with these types of negotiations.

    Mr. John Duncan: Okay, I'll accept that on face value, but I think there's more to it, actually. I'm not trying to be mischievous, I just think there's more to it. I do think you have some preambles that do include that.

    In other words, I don't think this is the first time. And it's an important question.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: With your indulgence, Mr. Chair, perhaps John and I can talk in more depth off-line so that I understand more fully where it is he's driving toward. I'd be happy to do that.

    Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Vellacott will finish up the time. You have two minutes and thirty seconds left.

[English]

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Thank you.

    I just want to go back to this issue, Mr. Minister. You are the one who basically sets the agenda and leads it forward at certain times and so on. I'm wondering if you have any objections to there being meetings on-site at Westbank First Nation as opposed to just simply here in the House of Commons.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I'm not going to discuss what I believe the committee should or should not do. That is for the committee to decide. I'm a witness here, and I'm the minister, but the committee is the master of its own fate. I think that's an appropriate way. That's the way the committee operated when I was the chair, and I believe that's the appropriate way. It would not be my place to suggest one way or the other what the committee should or should not do.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Perhaps I can ask another question in a different sort of manner, then. Do you have any deadlines in terms of what timeframe you'd like to have this completed and back to the House by?

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: My only issue is to bring to a conclusion what is essentially a 14- or 15-year process. As to how long it takes for the committee to deal with it, that's the committee's business. I'm not about to tell the committee how to run its business--where it should go or shouldn't go, how long it should take or shouldn't take. That's the purview, that's the responsibility, and that's the role of the committee, not of the minister.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I humbly suggest on the record, very....

    Pardon?

    The Chair: You have 35 seconds.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Yes, 35 seconds.

    We have a sign coming from the government, the parliamentary secretary, who is obviously under instruction from someone, that this has to be through by Friday, when we would quite prefer to have public meetings out in the Westbank area.

    This is not to say that we're at all opposed to the bill, but there are aspects of it that we'd like to look at with witnesses there. To have a parliamentary secretary getting instructions from somewhere—I assume the minister's office—that this needs to be done and through and reported back to the House by Friday is a bit unsettling for the committee. We need to have hearings there, in Westbank itself.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

    Monsieur Bagnell.

    Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): On a point of privilege, he's imputing things to me. I didn't get instructions from anybody. I made my own decisions.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

    Minister, would you like to give a brief answer?

[English]

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I'll just make the same comment. The committee's business is the business of the members of the committee.

    The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Thank you.

    Mr. Loubier, you have the floor.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good afternoon, Minister. I am pleased to see you here. I am also pleased to see representatives from the Westbank community, including the chief of that first nation. I had the opportunity to meet with them before the adjournment in December, and I gave them my full support as well as the support of my committee for their self-government plan. As you mentioned, Minister, the people of this community have been waiting for this moment for years. They came here in December and, if it had not been for a Canadian Alliance member who rose to oppose the consensus on the bill, legislation would already be in place today.

    I do not understand why the conservatives here today want to drag out the debate and see this bill die on the Order Paper since there was absolutely no opposition within their party in December, according to them. There was only one individual who had reservations and who stood up and blocked unanimous consent.

    I can tell you that we give our full, 150 per cent support to the Westbank initiative, as we would for any first nation self-government initiative, since this is the only valid way and the one that was set out by the Erasmus-Dussault report in 1998. We have to take that approach and even fast track self-government agreements.

    I have three questions for you, Minister. They are indirectly connected with Westbank.

    To begin with, I would like to know when you intend to sign the draft agreement in principle with the Innu of Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs launched an appeal yesterday to you through the media. All that is needed to move ahead with negotiations is your signature.

    Second, I would like to know what you intend to do about a terrible situation that is widespread in nearly all first nations communities, that is, the housing problems affecting aboriginal people. In Quebec and Labrador alone, 400 units will be built this year, whereas there is a need for 8,000. Very unsanitary conditions are widespread.

    Third, when I met your predecessor, I accused him of a lack of transparency. I also asked him a number of times, and your department as well, to provide me with the list of co-managers on all first nations lands, the list of third party administrators, the names, the amounts involved in the contracts they held and the type of work that they were doing. I am still waiting for an answer, and I hope that you will be able to provide me with a clear idea today of when I can expect that information.

»  (1745)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

    You have a point of order, Mr. Bagnell.

[English]

    Hon. Larry Bagnell: On a point of order, this is very disrespectful of the Westbank people. These are all totally out of order. We have a question period where these can be answered.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I can do it very quickly, Mr. Chair, if you'll....

    I've had.... Mr. Pelletier? Yes, Pelletier. There have been discussions that have gone back and forth about timing, and those discussions will continue.

    In terms of housing, you and I have had a conversation about that on a specific case. I've asked officials to actually travel there and provide me with a report, because you've pointed out something very specific.

    Absolutely, there's a need to deal with the broader issue, both in terms of what I would characterize as the social housing component, and also I believe we need to look outside the box and find some creative ways to encourage some additional housing, while understanding that it's really a two-track policy. But I am indeed working on that.

    You've made a request of me for some specific information. I'm having that compiled for you. As soon as that's completed, I will make sure that you get it.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

    Mr. Mitchell, I would point out that when we talk about first nations housing, as Mr. Loubier was doing, we are also talking about the Inuit in Nunavut and Nunavik. It is important that they be included when we talk about the lack of good housing. You agree that there are not just first nations in Canada, but also Inuit in Nunavik and Nunavut. Thank you very much.

    You still have three minutes, Mr. Loubier.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: I do not understand what my colleague, Mr. Bagnell, was getting at. I paid tribute to the people of Westbank and I will continue to do so. I had the opportunity not only to have a discussion with them, but also to see the video that they presented to us. They have done a tremendous amount of work, like many first nations who are trying to achieve self-government. They have to invest a tremendous effort, seek support, and keep going year after year. I want to congratulate them.

    If there is anyone who deserves credit, it is certainly them: they decide to invest all the energy, talent and ingenuity that people tried to take away from them for many decades with the despicable Indian Act. They have managed to come up with a very good plan, which we have here today and which deserves all our attention. We should all express our support for it as quickly as possible. We need to ensure that Westbank achieves the self-government status that all first nations so badly want. I will conclude on that note, Minister.

»  (1750)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

    Mr. Martin.

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I too will be brief; I don't think I need all my time to say simply that the NDP caucus is enthusiastically in support of this bill. I find it very satisfying to actually be able to do something in a proactive way. We spent a lot of time around this table as a standing committee opposing the First Nations Governance Act and opposing Bill C-6, and now I find it refreshing that we can give our support to this bill. I look forward to its speedy passage.

    The one observation I would make is that what we like about this bill, what I can support about it, is that it gives force to an agreement that was negotiated freely amongst the parties in a civilized, mature way. The legislation is not affecting the lives of people, it's the agreement that is going to affect the future of people, and this legislation simply enables that agreement to blossom and flourish. I would recommend, if you haven't already agreed to this, that as a model we can learn from as we move forward with other bills as well.

    I would challenge one thing. First, it was talked about in an in-camera meeting, so the idea of going to Kelowna really isn't an appropriate thing to be raised by my colleague from the Alliance. He should know. And I should point out that this is the most comprehensive and exhaustive democratic consultation process--

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Martin...

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: I beg your pardon?

[Translation]

    The Chair: There is a point of order.

    Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would draw to the attention of the member from the CCF, the party with official opposition status now is the Conservative Party of Canada. The Canadian Alliance is not the party represented at this side of the table.

    Mr. Pat Martin: That's certainly worth interrupting me for. Thank you.

    The consultative process that took place, on my understanding, was comprehensive and exhaustive and done in a very careful way. I believe the community has been adequately consulted and wouldn't benefit from our showing up as a parliamentary committee trying to reinvent the wheel that way. In fact, it stands in contrast with what we believe was a poor consultation process on the First Nations Governance Act. If there are two ends of this spectrum here, they are NFGA bad, Westbank good. We should remember that as a model as well in the future.

    I too would like to compliment the chief and council of Westbank, Chief Robert Louie. I liken his efforts now to that of Dr. Gosnell when we were proud, as a Parliament, to implement the Nisga'a agreement, in spite of 472 nuisance amendments by the Canadian Alliance--I think they were the Reform Party then, if we're going to be accurate about names.

    I don't think we should let anybody around this table play politics with this issue and delay this bill one moment longer, and I look forward to finishing the hearings today, dealing with the clause-by-clause tomorrow, and hopefully having it in the House by Friday.

    So I guess it's more of a comment than a question, Mr. Minister, but I too am happy to have you here. Thank you for your remarks. You have the NDP's enthusiastic support in this.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Drominsky.

[English]

    Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I also would like to congratulate the members from Westbank who are here today, and not only the members here today, but your fathers and your forefathers, who for years and years have been working in this direction and who never lost sight of their goals. I congratulate you and all your families.

    I have some questions, Mr. Minister, that may be answered and may not be answered. I know there are approximately 400 non-native individuals who will be involved in this Westbank stand-alone model. I'm a little bit concerned about the federal laws and provincial laws versus Westbank laws. Will these non-native, non-aboriginal individuals have constitutional rights within this model? Who has the power—the Constitution or the Westbank agreement? Where are the lines going to be drawn, if there are any lines drawn?

»  (1755)  

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

    There are actually, if I have the figures right, about 8,000 non-aboriginal individuals who are involved in this agreement and about 400 or so community members.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, the figures are the reverse—8,000 and 400, not 4,000 and 800.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: That's right.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Oh, okay.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: But, for instance, Canadian criminal law continues to apply. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies. All of those types of structures continue to apply.

    There are certain areas of jurisdiction that this agreement covers, and Westbank law will deal with those issues. They're required to establish, or have the option of establishing, an administrative panel to deal with them. They have some enforcement powers to deal with them. There is a process where judicial review can be sought if the administrative processes have been exhausted. So, like all other Canadians, there is access to all of those protections that all Canadians have to enjoy.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Good.

    I have another question. Hypothetically speaking, let's say in the years to come leadership changes several times, a different element comes into the picture of the administration, and we find a situation where this community is receiving federal dollars but complaint after complaint emerges to show the outside communities and the government that there is some hanky-panky going on in this community—in other words, misappropriation of funds, fraud, whatever it might be. Would the Auditor General have the authority and the power to go into this community to make an in-depth examination of anything that is questionable regarding the fiduciary agreements between the federal government and this community?

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I'm going to answer that, and if I get it wrong, my officials will let me know.

    On the expenditures that are the federal government's vis-à-vis an agreement, the Auditor General has the ability to audit what represents a federal payment, a federal transfer. That's always the case, whether we're dealing with a first nation, a self-governing first nation, or any type of entity. When it comes to what the federal government is doing in terms of its expenditure, the Auditor General has the right to examine, and that's not diminished.

    I suspect that the first nation itself in doing its books will engage a responsible auditor that has a mandate from the Westbank government to deal with its issues. But in terms of the federal government, yes, the Auditor General, as it would in any case that involves spending money, would have the right to examine it.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: I just have a question in my mind for the future. As I told the leaders, I'm most impressed with so many aspects of the agreement pertaining to language, education, and so forth. I could go on and on. I think it's a fantastic agreement, Mr. Minister, and we should get it off on its way as quickly as possible.

    This could be a model for many other areas of the country where stand-alone types of agreements can be created. These people have been working on it for many years. If we can use this as a model in other areas, we can shorten the time to bring about the kinds of positive goals for which we have been striving for such a long period of time in so many other areas of the country.

    Thank you.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I think there's a combination of things. Obviously, in the years that have led to this agreement and the agreement itself there have been a lot of things to learn from. I think we also need to be cognizant, though, that first nations are different across the country. As we proceed, yes, let's learn from the positive things in this, but also recognize that there are unique situations we will have to take into account as we move forward in other areas.

    Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much. I must let you know that the minister has firm commitments and that he was detained because of the vote in the House of Commons. I know that he needs to leave at 6:15 because of his commitments. There are two or three people who still wish to speak. Mr. Day and Mr. Laliberte, you have three minutes.

    Mr. Day.

¼  (1800)  

    Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, CPC): It was Mr. Schmidt.

    The Chair: I am sorry.

[English]

    Mr. Schmidt, you have three minutes.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming. We've known each other from previous agendas, and quite well.

    I'd also like to welcome Robert Louie, Chief of the Westbank Indian First Nation. Good to see you, Robert.

    I think the minister indicated that there have been friendly relations, and there have been. I'm proud of the Westbank First Nation. They've achieved success on some very serious issues.

    There is a point I'd like to ask you to clarify, Mr. Minister. It has to do with the mechanisms for non-members, if I understand correctly, living on Westbank lands or having an interest in Westbank lands, mechanisms through which they may have input into proposed Westbank law and proposed amendments to Westbank law that directly and significantly affect them. There are three things here. A mechanism must be created, and that means that there isn't one now. So we don't know what that mechanism is. The second thing is that they “may” have input; it doesn't mean that they “shall” have input into the proposed Westbank law, law that directly and significantly affects them.

    I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, if you could clarify exactly how that provision in the self-government agreement would be created and then implemented, and how it would actually operate where people, for example, might take exception to the way in which the law affects them in respect of taxation policies, real estate development, community development, licensing of businesses, and things of that sort.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: Thank you very much, Werner. I think that's a very good question.

    Let me start off by making the point that the status quo provides nothing for those individuals. Essentially, under the Indian Act, there is no provision to allow that. I think it's important to make the point, which you understand as well, that the creation of a mechanism by itself is a step forward, because right now there isn't anything. Further, the agreement calls for the creation of a mechanism, and I believe it's mandated as the first order of business. You could not have it in advance, because until such time as they are empowered to create their own law, they can't actually create it.

    What it will look like specifically is going to be up to Westbank under its self-government agreement. I'm not an expert in it--I'm not from British Columbia, I'm not from Kelowna, as you are--but from what I've been able to learn and from what I've been able to see, there is a history there that would indicate to me clearly that what will be done will be fair, will be inclusive, and will meet the needs of those individuals. I say that based on the activities of the band over the years. They have consistently demonstrated that they are good neighbours, good business partners, and good land managers. I have no doubt that as they develop this particular mechanism, the actions they've taken in the past, which we all agree have been exemplary and most appropriate, will be reflected in what they develop.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I think--

[Translation]

    The Chair: I am sorry, Mr. Schmidt, but your time has expired. We will now move to Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: But what I was going to say was really important.

[Translation]

    The Chair: A very brief question, then.

[English]

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I agree completely with Mr. Mitchell 's description of the band, but the part I'm concerned about, Mr. Chair, is that a comment was made that this could become a template, and I think that's useful. If the template is such that it will continue that sort of thing and will perpetuate the kind of relationship that exists now, that will be great. But there's no guarantee in it that would be the case. I think that's the concern people have. I think it would be good for you, Mr. Minister, to hear the people, about 8,000 of them, who would like to express themselves. They like living there. They didn't buy their houses there because they didn't like living there.

¼  (1805)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

    I should tell you that in about two minutes the people of Kelowna will begin hearing the transmission of our discussions. They will be able to see what we are doing here. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Minister, the self-government agreement flows from the policy of the federal government, but there's also a process of treaty negotiations with Westbank. Is it in progress, is it halted somewhere? I'm not familiar with the British Columbia Treaty Commission. So maybe you could describe your dealings with and understanding of the treaty negotiations. This is the first stand-alone self-government agreement; before that it was usually with a treaty and a self-government agreement. It's in two parts. I'm just trying to figure out how long Westbank will have to wait for this treaty process to continue.

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: My understanding is that the negotiations are continuing. We're working towards an AIP. I hope we can conclude that process as expeditiously as possible. It isn't something that's been set aside that we're not dealing with. It is something that needs to be dealt with, and those negotiations are continuing.

    Mr. Rick Laliberte: That's it.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We will now go to Mr. Martin.

[English]

    Mr. Martin, you have three minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin: No, thank you, not necessary.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Day.

[English]

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Merci.

    Thank you, Minister, and thank you for some of the discussions we've had previously related to this whole matter.

    It's been said before—I've certainly said it, as have others—that what we are seeing here historically is an exceptionally good and cooperative relationship between Westbank First Nation and not only neighbours but in fact those who live on Westbank First Nation land who are non-native--7,500 people and some 200 businesses. It right now is a model because of the good sense of all of the people involved.

    An extensive process of consultation over the years has led up to this legislation, and now it's at the legislative stage. To not allow for...and this is what I would like to pursue with you. I recognize that you're saying the committee votes, the committee decides. I don't know to what degree you had instructed the parliamentary secretary and others, but there's a real risk of tainting the good, productive, cooperative relationship that has taken place over the years by now abbreviating it by not allowing some time for members.... We've had at least one member from the Liberal side agreeing that it would be a good thing, although I can't reconstruct the vote.

    So that's my concern. Right at this point, why would there appear to be—and I'm saying “appear” because I think there's goodwill here—an inordinate rush at the committee stage, the very stage where the legislation....? This will affect people for years to come. It will be precedent-setting. Why should there now be what appears to be an inordinate rush?

    I had no major difficulty as the legislation was coming forward, but now, when I see this kind of pressure, and people saying, “Quick, let's get it done,” after this long process has taken place, I'm wondering what difference a few more days, or even a couple of weeks, would make...other than we're all frustrated and we'd like to see it done.

    If we don't have the ability—and I do appreciate, by the way, the extent to which the committee has gone with the teleconferencing, etc.—to at least have the questions addressed, and have some of the questioners who live there address the questions and get answers.... We may see that they're off the mark or we may see that they're on the mark, but if that opportunity isn't allowed, we put at risk a long, painstaking process of goodwill. I will be forced to ask all the questions at the clause-by-clause stage if these people who need to be here, or who want to present, can't.

    So I put that before you and ask you to reflect on that.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¼  (1810)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

    Mr. Mitchell.

[English]

    Hon. Andy Mitchell: I'll come back to the same answer I gave before. You're making an argument, Mr. Day, that's for the committee to deal with. It's not an argument for the minister to deal with. What the committee wants to do and how it wants to do its work is for the committee. In fact, if I tried to make an assumption that the committee worked at my whim, then I suspect the members of the committee would be terribly upset with me. As a former committee chair, I respect the work that committees do, and I respect the need for committees to make those decisions as committees. It's not appropriate for the minister to intervene in what the committee decides to do. It's the committee's business.

    In this case, I am the servant of the committee. I'm here because the committee asked me to be a witness. I have come as a witness before the committee, and the committee will do its work. At some point in time it will do clause-by-clause and the bill will be returned to the House. As to how it goes about doing that, it's the committee's business.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: As always, you're tremendously influential, and the committee would not balk at knowing what your feelings would be on seeing these visits happen. We wouldn't be offended by that.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

    Mr. Harvey.

    Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Minister, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I can assure you that you have our full confidence on this file, which has gone through great difficulties since its inception. I also want to congratulate the people of the Westbank community. I think that they are a worthwhile role model.

    Before you leave us, I want to tell you that what seems to me to be important in all this is that all the communities be involved in this kind of settlement process. As you know, I represent the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, which has a population of about 300,000. We had the issue of the common approach that was negotiated by our government, the Government of Quebec and the Innu community. Until very recently, the white community was not represented in these discussions, but two people, Benoît Bouchard, a former federal minister, and Germain Simard, a former president of the UPA, have just been appointed. That agreement, which I will not comment on, created a great deal of concern among the white community in our region.

    I am pleased that information sessions for people in my community are starting to be held so that they can be reassured before an agreement is signed. There are 300,000 people who are concerned for both rational and objective reasons and, in some cases, for more emotional reasons. I believe that we have work to do to reach out to the whole population in my region regarding this agreement.

    So I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to press the Government of Quebec, if necessary, to continue the work of providing information, raising awareness and perhaps consulting the public in order to make any necessary changes to the agreement in principle that has been proposed. I wanted to pass this concern along to you in front of your officials, Minister, and I thank you.

    The Chair: There are no other questions? Thank you very much, Minister. We know that you have a very full agenda and we want to thank you and your team for coming to meet with us and for being patient. Thank you for appearing here today, and we wish you a good evening.

    We will now adjourn for five minutes. There is a meal ready for us. Then I will invite the next witnesses to come to the table.

¼  (1814)  

---

¼  (1828)  

    The Chair: We will now continue with our next witnesses. The people of Westbank now have a live broadcast of our proceedings.

    The first witness is Mr. Robert Louie, Chief of the Westbank First Nation, who is accompanied by Micha Menczer, legal advisor. Mr. Louie, could you please introduce your team from Westbank, whom you have been working with for a number of years?

[English]

    Give a name and title.

    Chief Robert Louie (Westbank First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good evening, panel members.

    I'm very proud to be accompanied by the full council of the Westbank First Nation: Councillor Larry Derrickson, Councillor Raf DeGuevara, Councillor Mickey Werstvik, and Councillor Clarence Clough. As well, we have with us support staff. Ms. Brenda McGregor is our senior researcher in the intergovernmental affairs department of Westbank. I also have with me our legal counsel, Mr. Micha Menczer.

¼  (1830)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Chief Robert Louie: The gentleman over there, lest I forget, a very important man in our community, has been involved with us now in excess of 15 years, Dr. Tim Raybould. Mr. Raybould was the self-government negotiator on behalf of Westbank.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You have a 15-minute speech. Take your time.

    Chief Robert Louie: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    [Witness speaks in his native language]

    As you're aware, the Westbank self-government agreement has evolved through negotiations spanning a period of 14 years, culminating in a final agreement that was ratified by our membership on May 24, 2003. The final step in this phase of our historic journey is the passage of federal legislation signifying Canada's ratification of the agreement. I am very pleased, together with my council and staff, to appear before this committee to convey the significance of our agreement and the positive impact it will have for Westbank First Nation members and other persons residing on Westbank lands.

    Westbank First Nation is one of seven communities that comprise the Okanagan Nation. We have approximately 2,000 hectares of land adjacent to the city of Kelowna. We have approximately 600 band members and some 8,000 non-members living on our lands. We are Okanagan people of the interior Salish and have inhabited the Okanagan Valley for thousands of years.

    Our people have always said we have an inherent right to govern ourselves. It has been acknowledged by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the courts, and Canada's own policy on self-government that there is an inherent right of self-government for aboriginal peoples. The challenge has been how this right can be practically implemented, and the royal commission report, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions, such as Delgamuukw, and Canada's policies have recommended a course of negotiation rather than litigation. Westbank and Canada successfully negotiated a self-government agreement that implements aspects of the inherent right to self-government by Westbank First Nation on Westbank lands based on recognition that the inherent right is an existing aboriginal right.

    The journey to get to where we are today has certainly been exciting. In 1963, as our first step in self-determination in the modern era, Westbank split from the Okanagan Band in Vernon to form our own separate band. As a community, we felt the need to take over local control of our lands and chart a course for the future based on our community's goals and priorities. Since that time Westbank has developed socially, politically, and economically and has been recognized as a leader in many areas, such as first nation land management, fiscal relations, and aboriginal rights and claims. Sometimes this was by choice, but often it was because of the circumstances we found ourselves in. We have had our challenges.

    Westbank First Nation is an urban community with many pressures on its government. Like most first nations, Westbank is now governed under the Indian Act, which is not an appropriate framework for modern government on reserve and, clearly, did not and does not provide a proper legislative base for good government. The stability of Westbank First Nation government and economic decisions are too heavily determined by Ottawa. The need for change in first nations governance has been long recognized and is nowhere more apparent than in my community.

    In 1986 the federal government called a federal inquiry into the affairs of the Westbank First Nation. That inquiry was called the Hall inquiry. The inquiry found that there were many problems endemic under the Indian Act governance regime, including conflicts of interest, financial management, and procedures for the passage and public notification of Westbank bylaws, among other things. These problems created a climate of distrust among members. With respect to non-members residing on Westbank lands, the Hall inquiry found that the band's bylaw regime was chaotic and that band council failed to consult with those affected prior to implementation of the bylaws. Ultimately, Mr. Hall concluded that it was the old problem of it being “a government of men and not a government of laws.”

    In seeking to resolve the problems and to establish a government of laws, the Hall inquiry made recommendations for interim changes to address the most pervasive and immediate problems. These we attended to.

¼  (1835)  

    Ultimately, Mr. Hall recommended that Westbank First Nation pursue self-government legislation. This we did. In fact, it was under the former Conservative government and Minister Siddon that the self-government process formally began. Notably, the pursuit of self-government has been consistent through the administration of several Westbank chiefs as well as federal governments. During my initial term I signed the framework agreement in 1990. Chief Brian Eli signed the agreement in principle in 1998, and the final agreement was completed under Chief Ron Derrickson in the year 2000.

    So the question is asked, what is self-government really all about? First and foremost, it is about being in control in our own house, on our own lands. Westbank First Nation has gone as far as one can under the Indian Act. Given our history, we recognized long ago that we needed better tools to promote social and economic development for the benefit of all who live on our lands. In fact, these are the tools of government that most people take for granted, unless you live on an Indian reserve under the Indian Act.

    The constitution ratified by our members in May 2003 provides a strong model, not only for Westbank but we hope for other first nations as well. Through our constitution, we have a transparent and effective government, responsive to the needs of the local community. As the Hall report recommended, as our people demanded, and as the non-member residents expect, our constitution provides for democratic and legitimate elections and government, internal financial management and accountability, conflict of interest rules for officials, clear procedures for the passage and amendment of Westbank First Nation law, appeal mechanisms, as well as providing for the public notification of Westbank laws.

    The Westbank First Nation standards of financial accountability are required by the agreement to be at least comparable to those of other public governments providing similar public services. That, Mr. Chairman, is contained in section 55 of the self-government agreement.

    The constitution and the financial transfer agreement we are signing create additional financial accountability standards. These will all be binding on Westbank First Nation and ensure a level of financial accountability far exceeding what is the case today.

    The powers of our government are set out in the self-government agreement. They include typical municipal powers such as land-use planning and infrastructure delivery, some powers to fill vacuums in current laws, such as matrimonial laws pertaining to division of lands on marriage breakdown, and some powers that are uniquely required for first nations, such those that deal with membership, culture, and our language.

    Much care has been taken to address the relationships between our laws and federal laws and provincial laws to achieve a balance between areas that require national laws or standards and those where local first nation jurisdiction is appropriate. The result will lead to greater certainty in law-making authority on our reserves and a clearer decision-making process. This will in turn increase confidence in our government, resulting in more opportunities and more investment in our economy and our people.

    The agreement is unique on a number of fronts. It is not tied to any other precedent and is urban-based. It represents a new generation of self-government agreements in Canada. It is not linked to a land claim or treaty and is designed to meet the current governance needs of Westbank. The agreement applies to existing reserve lands or lands that in the future Canada declares to be Westbank reserve lands under its additions to reserve lands policy. It is a bilateral agreement with Canada and is based on the recognition that first nations have an inherent right to govern ourselves. Outside of claims settlement, it is the first of its kind since Canada introduced its inherent rights policy some ten years ago.

    Given our experiences with rapid growth and development, the agreement has in many ways been tailored to our circumstances and in this regard is very practical and carefully thought out. It truly is unique.

¼  (1840)  

    A significant element of the agreement, again, is section 54, which requires Westbank to formally establish, under law, a mechanism through which non-members residing on or having an interest in Westbank lands can have input into Westbank laws that significantly and directly affect them. Notably, this law must be in place within 30 days of self-government coming into force, and before a new Westbank law under self-government can be passed.

    In June 2000 Westbank established an interim advisory council to represent the non-Westbank members residing on Westbank lands. The interim advisory council has been functioning since that time.

    This week a poll was commissioned by Westbank and conducted by CGT Research International, a professional polling firm from Vancouver. That poll revealed that 70% of non-member residents were aware of the interim advisory council and the good work it has been doing. The self-government agreement moves this mechanism to the next level, requiring a mechanism such as this to be formally entrenched in a Westbank law that cannot be amended without the consent of the non-member residents.

    We are currently developing this law and have sought the input from non-member residents. Once completed, this law provides a formal, permanent legal mechanism for non-members residing on Westbank lands to have input into Westbank First Nation government. This is a significant and positive change.

    One of the key roles currently for the interim advisory council is a direct involvement in the property taxation budget allocation. Property tax is a central issue for non-member residents. Since 1990 Westbank has been collecting property tax pursuant to section 83 of the Indian Act. We annually pass property tax assessment and expenditure bylaws, which must be approved by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. Our taxation bylaw has a full system of independent assessments and appeal mechanisms comparable to that off reserve.

    Self-government does not change this, and property interest will continue to be assessed, taxed, and appealed in the same manner as before with a continuing obligation on Canada to approve our property tax bylaws.

    When we were negotiating this agreement our members told us that it was important to protect individual rights and to ensure there was easy and clear access to the courts for judicial remedies. It was clear from the outset that this was central to ensure confidence and respect for our self-government and for the laws and decisions made under the new arrangements. Therefore, our agreement makes it as clear as possible that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to Westbank First Nation and the council and that the courts have full jurisdiction to review Westbank laws for charter compliance.

    However, our members wanted to clarify access to the courts beyond the basic charter challenges. We did this in two ways.

    First, the agreement provides that the Judicial Review Procedure Act of British Columbia applies to Westbank First Nation. Applications for review will be heard in the B.C. Supreme Court in the same manner as other applications.

    Secondly, Westbank wanted to make sure that there was due process for adjudication under Westbank law. Accordingly, prosecutions involving Westbank law will be heard in the Provincial Court of British Columbia, and summary conviction procedures under the Criminal Code will apply to trials.

    So with these revisions, we believe there is effective access to the courts for those affected by Westbank law. We are proud to say that our movement to self-government has been conducted with complete transparency, and it comes as no surprise to those who live on Westbank lands.

    Of course, as you would expect, this has meant that numerous meetings have been held. There have been open houses, presentations at the chamber of commerce and other community forums, media interviews, mailings to residents with literally thousands of copies of our agreement circulated.

    The results of our recent poll verify that our efforts have worked, disclosing that 94% of non-members living on Westbank lands were aware that Westbank is moving toward self-government.

    Unfortunately, recently there has been considerable misinformation spread through the community. This fear-mongering is driven by a small group of people from Westbank who we suspect are being supported by individuals who do not live in our community and who have other agendas. This is unfortunate. If not checked, it can unsettle and scare people who are generally satisfied living on our lands.

¼  (1845)  

    It is important to do our best to directly address these questions—and it is working.

    I want to read to you a letter I recently received from one of the non-native residents on Westbank lands. It is addressed to myself, and it's dated March 4, 2004. It's a very short letter, and it reads:

Dear Sir:

Re: WFN Self-Government.

As a non-member resident of Westbank First Nations lands, I wish to express my appreciation for your recent correspondence/communication with regard to the letter distributed by the Canadian Citizen Rights Association.

We have been residents of Bayview Development for two years now and have been very pleased with our choice of location to live. Apart from the concern over the delay with the negotiation of the Head Lease, we have never had any worries about living on First Nations Land. However, seeds of concern were being planted by recent “letters to the editor” and now, correspondence from the CRA. Therefore, your letter of clarification is appreciated.

Again, thank you.

    It's signed by a resident within Bayview Development, which is on Westbank lands.

    At a meeting called by the Interim Advisory Council just last week, over 150 non-member residents attended, and I, along with my counsel here and staff, answered the questions about the implementation of self-government, and how it would affect them. We have received a very positive response from those present. Further, the recent opinion poll of non-member residents revealed that only 16.5% of non-member residents were either strongly or somewhat against Westbank self-government. In fact, 40% said they supported self-government, with 27% saying they were neither for nor against it. This, we believe, is very significant and important.

    Please do not be misled by those who would try to convince you otherwise. These statistics clearly show the fallacy of claims that large percentages of non-member residents oppose self-government. We believe that as self-government is implemented, the benefits of stable and modern Westbank government will become even more apparent, and that the small percentage of those opposed will decrease even more.

    It is natural that change will create questions, but that is no reason to remain in a form of government under the Indian Act, which is universally seen as outdated. Nor is it right for those who disagree with change to ignore clear provisions in the agreement designed to protect individual rights. The question is not whether Westbank First Nation should move away from the Indian Act, but how and when. The time to act is now, to allow us to move forward to establish a strong foundation of government and laws to support the social and economic development of our community for the benefit of all who live there.

    Self-government is about the future; it is about our youth, and creating a stable community where hard work and initiative are rewarded. The objective is to create a safe and vibrant community, with a clear identity of who we are and where we are going. While economic opportunities will result from good governance, at its core it is really about our culture and our identity.

    To do this, we need to take the final steps with the enactment of federal legislation. It is significant that there has been and is all-party support for this legislation. With this, we can begin a new and modern partnership with Canada that not only serves the needs of Westbank First Nation and all residents on our lands, but can also serve as a model for other first nations to consider in their political and social development.

    I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me to address these issues. Both our legal counsel, Micha Menczer, and myself will be pleased to answer your questions.

    Thank you for this opportunity.

¼  (1850)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Louie, to both you and your team. I have to tell you, sir, that I am very impressed by your remarks, your leadership in preparing the future for the young people of Westbank and, more than anything else, the qualify of life that you make possible for all Westbank residents, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I am really very impressed.

    I met with you yesterday and I want to say to you and to the Westbank community that you are very forthright and honest. To my mind, you are an excellent chief and lawyer, and a leader among Canadians. I want to sincerely thank you and your team.

    We will now have questions from members. We will start with Mr. Day, followed by Mr. Martin and Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome, Chief. I won't repeat my earlier comments about the good relationship that has been established under your tenure and that of others. It's a fact that is known, and it speaks for itself. You and your councillors are to be congratulated for that.

    We'll be looking at clause-by-clause on this tomorrow.

    I said to you that I would be advocating to have members of the committee come out there, and I appreciated the fact that you stated no opposition to that. Obviously, you know that these decisions are in the hands of the committee. But I appreciated your openness and transparency and your willingness to handle the questions, as you have been doing.

    You've already reflected on this, but perhaps you or Mr. Menczer could clearly state it. If we look at before and after, before the agreement and once the agreement is in place, will there be any areas where the Charter of Rights no longer will apply where it applied before?

    Mr. Micha Menczer (Legal Counsel, Westbank First Nation): Chief Louie has asked me to answer that. The simple answer is no. Great care was taken in the agreement to make it clear that the Charter of Rights applies. There has been some discussion about the wording that was used, but I would draw the committee members' attention to section 32 of the agreement. I don't think it could be in clearer language. It says “The government of Westbank First Nation and Council in respect of all matters under its authority are bound by the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms...”. Those are the first two lines. The last two lines say “...the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter are enforceable in respect of the government of Westbank First Nation and the Council.”Between those is an articulation of the wording of section 25 of the charter. That is already part of the charter.

    So basically we're saying that the charter and the whole charter apply to Westbank First Nation. It will be exactly the same the day after self-government as it is today with regard to the charter and the protection of individual rights.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Does section 25 give some blanket exemptions?

    Mr. Micha Menczer: It doesn't give blanket exemptions. I think that's a misreading. More importantly, section 25 is part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Westbank and the Government of Canada have no power to change that, either by an agreement or even by legislation. That is a matter of constitutional change. The protection is in section 25, and over the years the courts will provide interpretation and enlightenment as to that. So it is a restatement of what is in the charter and the whole charter.

¼  (1855)  

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Chief, could you clarify this statement? I don't know if I caught the whole phrase. I tried to write it down. “Westbank law cannot be amended without consent of the non-natives”--did I hear that correctly, or was it in another reference?

    Chief Robert Louie: That is in reference to section 54 of the self-government agreement, which speaks about the advisory council. That is what we've put in place. There's a timeframe, of course, that applies with that law.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: So that statement is in reference to the advisory council.

    Chief Robert Louie: That's correct.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Could there be a Westbank law to which the advisory council would not have access? Could a law proceed without their consent?

    Chief Robert Louie: That is correct. For example, if we wanted to put a law in place about Westbank First Nation education or something about our languages, culture, and heritage, issues such as those are of no concern to a non-member.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: I'm splitting my time with my colleague, Mr. Chairman. He has a question.

    Thank you, Chief, and Mr. Menczer.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Day.

    You have four minutes.

    Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much. I know you all, so I won't go into any detail there, because time's short, but welcome.

    My first question relates--and this is basically for the record--to the inherent right question in terms of the preamble, the inherent right to self-government. The Nisga'a agreement, for example, does not include the word “inherent”. The Nisga'a agreement says the Nisga'a Nation has the right to self-government.

    The Nisga's agreement, however, is constitutionally protected; this agreement is not. Consequently, I think the Westbank feels it's very important that statement be in the preamble. Would it be fair to say that if this were a final constitutionally protected self-government and land claims agreement, the Nisga'a statement would suffice--without the inclusion of the word “inherent”?

    Chief Robert Louie: What I'd like to do is have Mr. Menczer speak to that, and I'd like to add to it.

    Mr. Micha Menczer: I'll give you a narrow legal answer and let the chief explain the view of the community on this.

    The statement in the preamble is essentially a restatement of the broad policy of the Government of Canada's inherent right policy, so it's a general statement of recognition. It also basically is consistent with the development in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report. So it is a broad statement. Clearly, this agreement is not a treaty.

    I wasn't involved directly in the Nisga'a negotiations, so I can't speak to why, but the Nisga'a was a treaty; therefore, it was automatically constitutionally protected. That may perhaps be the reason it wasn't necessary, why they didn't feel it appropriate for their people. The Nisga'a people have always talked in terms of treaty rights. They were on the treaty path, in negotiations for--depending on who you ask--20 years, with assertions of 50 years. So for them it was all about treaty.

    Westbank is not in the final stages of the treaty process; they're in negotiations. So perhaps when we come to that stage where we settle not only on-reserve issues, but also the broader claim, different wording might be used.

    Basically the preamble is a restatement, a direct lift from the policy of Canada.

    Chief Robert Louie: I would like to add to what Mr. Menczer has just responded to you. I want to talk about our feelings--in our community what inherent right really means and what it consists of.

    First, I want to indicate that inherent right is something that we, as the original occupants, the original inhabitants of our lands, feel very strongly about. It's about our culture, our religion. It is about who we are as a people. This is a negotiated practical agreement, and we believe, with all due respect, that the agreement speaks very clearly for itself.

    We believed when we negotiated this agreement that there is protection provided in the Canadian Constitution. Again, I wish to stress that this is not a land claim or a treaty. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples supports the statement of inherent rights. This was what we believed when Mr. John Hall many years ago recommended that we pursue self-government.

    I wish to add, Mr. Chairman, that what we have here in the self-government agreement as it pertains to inherent right is not something that any Canadian in this country should be afraid of.

½  (1900)  

    The Chair: The time is finished. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Chief Louie and councillors, for being here.

    I was leaning toward not even using my time, because I would like to speed it up, but then I realized I'm only giving more time to other parties if I don't take mine. I am genuinely interested in the aspects and details of this whole issue.

    I wonder if we could talk about those who are strenuously in opposition to what you're doing here. You've portrayed them as a small group of people who perhaps don't even live within the area. I have some knowledge of their background--I've tracked organizations like B.C. FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Equality. They're simply a group that are vehemently opposed to the idea of aboriginal self-governance and very fearful of creating a new level of government within Canada. I think they actually go around and oppose virtually every agreement along these lines with great vigour.

    One of the arguments that they raise, or one of their strengths that they cite in their documentation, is a Newfoundland Court of Appeal case, Dawe v. Conception Bay South. I know Mr. Menczer is aware of this. This case deals with municipal governments, which are, in the words of the decision, “creatures of legislative bodies” from which their powers are received. In such circumstances there can be no talk about inherent powers.

    I wonder if you'd care to comment if you think it's less than appropriate to make an analogy from this example--the first nations, which can rely on aboriginal self-government that is constitutionally protected under section 35 as the source of their powers.

    In other words, I don't think I have to explain further. Would either of you like to comment on what we believe as misinformation spread by this group that's in opposition by making reference to the Newfoundland Court of Appeal Dawe v. Conception Bay South case?

    Mr. Micha Menczer: Maybe I'll just respond briefly to that. I have looked at the Dawe case, and I did comment that it was a municipal case and in my view not appropriate.

    There are aspects of Westbank's governing powers that our local government likes, but it's not accurate to call it a municipal government. The Sechelt model is a municipal government. There have been choices. The Nunavut model is a public government. So there are different choices, different models, different approaches. Westbank doesn't fit into any of these niches, and to label it a municipal model simply because there are some local powers is inaccurate. But even more difficult is to take conclusions from that inaccurate labeling to the next level.

    I think Chief Louie--and if he has any further comment, I'll let him--expressed it very well. This agreement and the negotiations were not about labels; they were about trying to stay out of the courts in terms of litigating constitutional matters, litigating principles that the royal commission, the courts, have leaned toward, that parliamentary committees have talked about at the federal government level.

    It's not about litigation. It's about putting that aside, sitting down and agreeing how we could have better government at Westbank; how you could have an appropriate relationship between federal, provincial, and Westbank law; how you protect individual rights; how you create stability. Once the details were put in the agreement and all the parties were agreed, then in my view it would be an interesting academic exercise to start to discuss accurate labels. But it's not relevant for the people of Westbank whether they be members or non-members. What they want is good, stable government, a safe community, and social, political, and economic development responsibility. That's what this agreement sought to do, and in my view I think it does it.

    So to put labels on it and draw from cases that in my legal opinion don't have relevance to the model that was negotiated between the parties creates only fear and uncertainty, and if people look a little deeper, I think they'll understand it better.

½  (1905)  

    Chief Robert Louie: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add this as well. What we've negotiated here with Canada is about balance--what is fair for all those concerned. On one extreme we have, in our own band membership and in other first nations across the country, those who strenuously argue for sovereignty and first nation independence and those who say in the same breath that this agreement does not go far enough. So we have that extreme.

    What we have in this agreement is a negotiated one, something that two-thirds of our membership have supported. That's the balance. It is something we believe will work, that will take in all the aspects that we desire, that are proper, and that are needed by our community. This is what we believe we have in this agreement.

    The Chair: You have one minute.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

    I want to deal with one other matter of misinformation that seems to be spread, which is that there are some fears raised that the agreement may not be threatening in its current form, but it may be amended or altered without due process or due consultation. My understanding is that it first has to be ratified by a vote of the members, and then it also has to be approved by order in council in Canada.

    Could you speak to the amending process of the agreement as it stands, and any fears that some of your critics might have expressed?

    Chief Robert Louie: I think it's a two-pronged answer. If I may, I'd like again to ask Mr. Menczer to speak from the legal perspective, and I would like to speak from the political perspective.

    Mr. Micha Menczer: I would draw your attention to section 299 of the agreement. As makes sense, it can only be amended with the consent of both parties.

    For Westbank to amend it, we have to go back to a full referendum of the members, both on and off reserve, to vote on that, and receive a majority of members participating in the vote and a majority of those voting to approve it, so a double majority, the standard that has been in fact reached in all the votes.

    For Canada, it is by way of order in council. I think the rationale for that is Canada has gone through the legislative process as a formal ratification. Once they have consented to that, to proceed by an order in council is not an unreasonable way to proceed. So there's a clear amending process.

    One of the great myths that was spread around to create uncertainty and try to unsettle it was the idea of whether Canada could ultimately revoke this legislation at a future date, because this is initially brought in by legislation. The whole argument was raised, or let's say the flag was raised, about constitutional aspects and all that. Frankly, my view is this is again I won't say the worst kind of misinformation, but it really misses the point.

    The question is, if you have an agreement negotiated between Canada and a first nation, over 14 years, where the party agrees, where Parliament passes legislation, I don't think the question is so much could Canada revoke this, because Parliament is supreme in terms of legislation, but under what circumstances would Canada ever imagine revoking an agreement that they negotiated and that was ratified by Parliament?

    I won't give you the full lecture, but court case after court case has talked about the honour of the Crown in dealing with aboriginal peoples. How would an aboriginal group or first nation or any other group ever sit down with the Crown if, after 14 years of negotiation, after legislation, Parliament then came around and said, unilaterally, revoke that.

    So I think the question is mischievous. I think the answer is simple, that the agreement talks about an amending procedure. But I think the question is mischievous in the suggestion.

½  (1910)  

    Chief Robert Louie: If I may, Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Menczer has indicated, we think it's clearly enunciated in the agreement itself with regard to the amendment procedures and requirements.

    Something I wish to stress, because our community has taken it very seriously, is the time and effort spent by community members. Meeting after meeting took place, with literally thousands and thousands of hours of community consultation. One thing is very clear from our membership: they want an agreement that will work, that will stand the test of time, and that is the time that has been put by our community members to ensure that we have something that will stand that test of time.

    We're talking about looking at amendments to the self-government agreement, and this is going to be taken very seriously by our community. I'll speak from that perspective for a moment, because it is something that is very fundamentally important here for our community. That is to not willy-nilly or otherwise put amendments in place that will have impact on not only the present, but the future generations. These are the considerations that our community has taken into account. This agreement is about accountability, about good governance, and any amendments to that have to be cautiously and very carefully looked at. That's the intent of our community, and our community has made that clear to our council.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you, Chief Louie. I am very impressed to learn that over 400 information and consultation sessions have been held over the past 14 years and to hear you talk about these events.

    We will now give the floor to Mr. Telegdi, who will be followed by Mr. Duncan and Mr. Laliberte. I want to say to the people who have joined us a little while ago from Kelowna that we will get to you in about 30 minutes. Mayor Walt Gray is there.  

[English]

    The mayor will be next.

    Mr. Walt Gray (Mayor, City of Kelowna): Yes, I'm here in Kelowna.

    The Chair: I have 30 more minutes for the committee to finish with the witnesses from Westbank, and then you'll be the next witness.

    Mr. Telegdi.

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm going to be rather brief.

    I would like to remark that certainly one of the special occasions that we had here since I came to Parliament about ten years ago was the Nisga'a Treaty. We stayed up many hours and debated and dealt with many amendments to go through that. It certainly was a most notable occasion.

    I'm very impressed and I'm very pleased about this agreement, and I look forward to having these kinds of agreements happen more and more often, because it certainly gives credence to the fact that you can have self-government and we can work these things out. So congratulations to all concerned.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Duncan.

    Mr. John Duncan: Yes, thank you. I too would like to continue to try to get a couple of things on the record here, so bear with me.

    Many people are not aware of the constitution that comes into effect at the same time as the agreement. As I read the constitution, the main financial accountability provisions are actually there. They're not per se in the self-government agreement; they're in the addendum, which is the constitution. I would like to ask a question about this.

    All of that financial accountability is directed primarily towards accountability to the most important people, which is the band membership, but provision 244 of the act is the provision that deals with interaction with the federal government in terms of providing financial information to the federal authority. That's the only way the federal authority can come to some negotiating position in terms of the financial transfers. I'm wondering if you've thought down the road.... Does section 244 actually bring into effect the same provisions that are in section XX and XXV in the constitution? I think there are probably privacy and other concerns that come into it. So I'm wondering what is envisioned in terms of how that would work. I asked the federal minister the same thing and didn't get a very comprehensive answer. I thought I might get a better one from you.

½  (1915)  

    Mr. Micha Menczer: Maybe, Mr. Duncan, I can answer some of the technical aspects and Chief Louie can respond from the community perspective.

    You are accurate in describing that a lot of the detailed rules are in part 10 of the constitution. One thing that's notable, though, is the accounts of Westbank First Nation are public, and there are audits that are available not only to members but to non-members as well. So there is no secrecy on that level.

    Mr. John Duncan: Is that in the constitution?

    Mr. Micha Menczer: I'll have a look; I'll try to identify it. If not, if I don't do it in the short time here, I'll point that out at the break. Or perhaps one of my associates here can look it up while I'm answering a little further.

    Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Micha Menczer: That's one element.

    On the other element, you accurately pointed to section 244 of the self-government agreement. It says that where there are financial transfer agreements, there are full accountability requirements to Parliament. I'd just like to elaborate on that. That's in the general section. The actual financial transfer agreement that has been negotiated between Westbank and Canada has very specific provisions, in some ways similar to transfer arrangements that are done with non-self-governing first nations. So they're very detailed provisions for reporting, auditing, and public accounting. That is money that comes from Canada.

    The final piece that is important to be aware of is that with property taxation--which is really a central interest of the non-member residents, because it's their tax money--since the interim advisory council was established in July 2000, there has been input into budgeting and budget information to the interim advisory council. They've been involved in discussions and negotiations and been asked for their feedback on the budget since 2000. So the primary mechanism for non-member residents, which I understood your question to be focused on, is around property tax, because it's the money they pay, and that is through the budgeting. So that's completely open, and they are active participants.

    For federal money that comes in, there are accountability provisions in the agreement and in the transfer agreement itself. That's my recollection. But in terms of the government money and certainly the non-member resident money, those two areas are clearly covered. I'll look to see if it goes further, but this largely might deal with community money.

    Mr. John Duncan: Because the mayor of Kelowna will soon be one of our witnesses here, I just wanted to give an opportunity.... I talked to Chief Louie earlier about the specifics of the ATR policy and how it relates. I know you addressed it in your opening statement, but I wonder if there's anything you want to add in terms of Westbank lands and possible additions and purchases.

½  (1920)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

    Chief Robert Louie: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

    I would like to respond to the first part of Mr. Duncan's question about accountability, financial expenditures, annual budgets, and so forth. This again was something our community members were very focused on when the self-government agreement was negotiated. The self-government agreement provides that annual budgets must be prepared. Provisional budgets must be prepared by December 15 of each year, and then provided to the membership at a membership meeting.

    There are special rules that have been identified for local revenues, such as property taxes, and no deficit is allowed. With respect to other Westbank First Nation revenues, Westbank cannot operate under a deficit unless consent has been given by the members through a vote at a special membership meeting. Those are very significant requirements that this agreement contains.

    The constitution also sets out restrictions on expenditures, so only expenditures that have been budgeted for can be made. It also makes it very clear, with regard to provision for expenditures, that there is a limited amount that councils can expend, and they cannot expend it without getting approval by the membership at a special membership meeting.

    In addition, there are periodic requirements, such as reporting to the members on the finances, and yearly audits. They are available to all members, and have been very clearly enunciated in this agreement. All of the audits are done in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. All of this is contained in the agreement. So we believe there are very significant accountability requirements, and certainly any council today or in the future must take them into account.

    On the additions to reserve policy, what applies today will apply after self-government being legislated. On how it essentially works now, if a first nation like ours were to request additions to our reserves, we must first sit down with the Government of Canada to negotiate that very component. But there is also the requirement, when we're looking at fee-simple lands, let's say, to be added to reserve status, that we must get the consent of the province. That requires notification of and discussions with local government.

    We have gone through that process in the past. For example, an agreement was made in the early 1980s, but only in the past few years were the lands that were requested by Westbank finally added to the reserve land base. That's not withstanding the fact that both Canada and the Province of British Columbia agreed in the early 1980s that these lands would be given reserve status. We went through that procedure, met with local government, and these lands were added to the reserve base.

    So the same sorts of requirements would apply today as will apply after self-government legislation is confirmed.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Your time is finished, but Monsieur Menczer can answer your question. After that we will go to Mr. Laliberte.

    Mr. Micha Menczer: Section 89 of the constitution talks about local revenue account reporting. You are right. You talked about annual reporting to Westbank members on finance, and that was direct reporting to members. In addition to that, the provision I couldn't put my finger on a moment before is in section 9. It says that a separate audit report of local revenue accounts shall be made available to members, to any other person who has an interest in or the right to occupy, possess, or use Westbank lands. That's the key. Those are your non-member residents.

    When you look at how local revenue accounts are defined, those are the tax moneys, user fees, licences, or permit fees. So if you have a non-member resident paying those fees, section 89 is the public protection to them. This is the money they pay; therefore it's accessible to them. So that's how we dealt with the protection.

½  (1925)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Monsieur Menczer.

    Monsieur Laliberte.

    Mr. Rick Laliberte: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to congratulate the chief and the Westbank First Nation.

    I'd like to focus also on this evolution, because that's the way I see this agreement. The treaty is something you're working towards as well. I think the federal and provincial governments are bound to reach that. Upon the conclusion of the journey seeking this treaty, you would also be looking at the relationships within your nation. Okanagan, I guess, would be the correct terminology, with the common language and common culture of that area. Will you be going forward with a Westbank treaty negotiation or with a broader, nation approach to the treaty finalization? I don't know the process, so that's what I'd like to have clarified.

    Chief Robert Louie: We are involved in the treaty negotiation process, but we are the only first nation of the seven member bands within the Okanagan Nation that is actually in treaty negotiations. We've chosen, through our community, to proceed on that basis. That's not to say we don't overlap with many of the issues of our member bands. We have common interests, such as hunting, fishing, trapping rights, heritage sites. All of those are common issues, we have taken the approach that with these issues that have common ground, we meet and work with our other member bands within the Okanagan Nation Alliance.

    Right now we are proceeding with interim agreements. We have successfully negotiated some of those interim agreements, as they regard forestry for example. So we have proceeded down that path. We have yet to complete the treaty negotiations. I do not know where that will go or what time it will take, but it's something we are working more closely on with the other member bands. The ideal situation would be to collectively have a treaty agreement.

    As far as self-government is concerned and the jurisdiction that we have in the self-government agreement, this is something that is unique and particular to the Westbank First Nation community. That is the understanding and that is the process our community negotiated. So when we're talking about treaty negotiations, what we have negotiated in self-government applies to the Westbank reserve lands. There may be some common areas of co-management, off-reserve lands, for example, where jurisdiction may apply, but as far as Westbank is concerned, and particularly as it relates to self-government jurisdiction, that is something that is unique to the Westbank First Nation.

    Mr. Rick Laliberte: There are provisions, and probably language, in the agreement and in the legislation that don't preclude your treaty final negotiations. That's why I refer to it as evolutionary. With the provisions in the agreement and maybe in your constitution, and your governance experience as you get in your canoe and start paddling, start governing under these laws and making and enforcing laws, there's a whole lot of responsibility that will come with that. When the treaty negotiations come to finalization, you may want to correct any errors or oversights you experience governing under this arrangement.

    Chief Robert Louie: That is correct. There are specific clauses that deal with the treaty aspects. Very clearly, this is not a treaty, it is distinct from a treaty.

    I believe Mr. Menczer can add to that with regard to the content of the agreement itself.

    Mr. Micha Menczer: Just very briefly, section 4(a) is about as plain language as we could do. “This Agreement shall not constitute a treaty. This Agreement is without prejudice to treaty-making in British Columbia.”

    What we have done, Mr. Laliberte, also, is a little deeper in the agreement. We have allowed for Westbank, in future, whether through treaty or other things, to enter into arrangements with other first nations, other organizations on a larger level, on perhaps the Okanagan Nation level, should that evolution come about.

    That's in section 50, under “Delegation”. We've allowed for delegation down to local bodies, boards--whether it be a school board or another community board--that will deal with matters at the local level, but also for movement up to whether there wishes to be an association at a future date.

    I think you've read the tea leaves correctly. We wanted to leave it flexible enough so that as there is evolution, we could grow into that together with other first nations within the Okanagan.

½  (1930)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you.

    Congratulations also for a job well done.

    I'm interested in the reasoning behind keeping the land the same, preserving it still as land reserved for Indians, and under the fiduciary principle that you wish to keep that relationship. I just want to get a bit of a background as to why you decided to keep those, and just the reasoning behind those two positions that are with the agreement.

    Chief Robert Louie: Thank you very much for your question.

    It was the decision by our community that we did not want to entertain fee-simple lands. We did not want to entertain provincial jurisdiction applying as far as law-making on the Westbank lands. So it was the wish of our community, very clearly enunciated, that we remain under section 91(24) of the Constitution, which is federal jurisdiction, with the exception that the jurisdiction would be that of the Westbank First Nation in the federal domain. That is how we wished to proceed, and our direction was very clear in that regard.

    We have gone so far as to pass a land code. That land code took effect July 1, 2003. In that land code, section 91(24) applies. That land code will be rolled into the self-government agreement once legislation is passed. Again, that was the clear direction of our community to proceed in that direction.

    We also wanted to ensure, when we're talking about fiduciary obligations to the federal government, that there are significant benefits that also apply that would remain. I specifically refer to section 87 of the Indian Act, for example, whereby there are certain exemption provisions. These taxation exemption provisions are very important to our community. Again, our community was very clear in their directions to preserve those exemptions, but at the same time to put forward and to work with a system that will work for our community.

    There are some of our members who pay taxes, for example. Those who form corporations that don't meet the definition of “Indian”, if they're an entity, an incorporated body, then taxes must be paid. In fact, those taxes are being paid today by those non-Indian corporations owned by Westbank members. That is something that continues. That I believe is very clearly enunciated again within the context of the self-government agreement.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

    Does anyone have any other questions? Mr. Martin?

[English]

    Mr. Pat Martin: No, thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: We very much appreciate your testimony, Chief Louie and Mr. Menczer. In my riding, which is one of the largest in the country—802,000 square kilometres with a population of 100,000 people, including James Bay Cree, Nunavik Inuit and Abitibi Algonquins—I always leave some time for the elders to speak.

    The elders never intervene, even though they always give good advice whenever they do. Before we conclude, I would like to ask your elder, Clarence Clough, to speak for two minutes.

½  (1935)  

[English]

    Mr. Clarence Clough (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee.

    I wasn't expecting this, but I guess, as an elder, I've seen Westbank come a long way since I was a boy. There were some very hard times back in the mid-1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and part of the 1970s. From what I see here, it's a very positive move for our members and our non-members. There have been some struggles up and down, as, of course, in any other events, but as of now we are on the right track.

    I don't have much education. I don't blame anyone, but in my time kids weren't allowed to go to public schools. I didn't go to school until I was very old. When I did go to school, it was a battle, with discrimination and so forth. All my other friends went to boarding school, which I don't think was a very good thing, because all the people who came back had lost their language.

    Those are probably the things that, when you look back and compare that to what we're doing, are very different and very positive for our future children. I can't see anything but good in this.

    We do have a little opposition, but there is opposition anywhere. Even my wife doesn't get along with me sometimes.

    A voice: That's her inherent right.

    Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): We all have that problem.

    Mr. Clarence Clough: That's our government.

    I thank everybody who is here today.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

    Thank you, Chief Louie.

    Thank you everybody. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go on the record saying that I wish we could get the no-deficit law that applies to them to apply to the federal government.

    Chief Robert Louie: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on behalf of all of our council and on behalf of all of our people, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of the members present for your supportive words. We are very grateful for that support.

    We do look forward, Mr. Chairman, to early passage in the hope that the legislation can proceed quickly. We have taken great pains--also, great expense, if I may add--for all of our council to be here. We have our community members at home who are expecting and praying that this legislation can proceed. We only hope, and we stress the urgency that it is important for us to have this self-government legislation passed.

    Accountability is one thing; the land values and the economic aspects are another. But perhaps most important is that, as the people of the Okanagan Nation and as the people of Westbank, we have spent the time necessary to put something together we can live with.

    We can only hope, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that you will support us and have swift entertainment of legislation so that we may get on with our lives and get on with our future. It's our children and our future generations that are at stake.

    I thank you again for your time.

½  (1940)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Robert Louie.

    I'll now go to the other witnesses: Mr. Dinwoodie and the people in Kelowna--the mayor, Mr. Walt Gray; Ms. Kat Maurmann; and Mr. Len Novakowski.

    We'll start with the mayor, Mr. Walt Gray. You have five minutes, Mr. Gray.

    Excuse me for being late.

    Mr. Walt Gray: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and don't apologize for being late. Remember, it's three hours earlier here in Kelowna.

    Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it gives me a great deal of pleasure that you give me this opportunity, as mayor of Kelowna, to speak on behalf of the City of Kelowna, British Columbia, about the Westbank First Nation's desire for self-government.

    Also, hello to all our Kelowna friends there in Ottawa from Westbank First Nation, Chief Louie and his council.

    Chief Louie, I can tell you that I notice you have all your councillors there, and with me here in Kelowna today I have none of my councillors; but then, I haven't promised to buy them dinner, and I trust that you have.

    First, for those of you who may not be aware, let me give a bit of a context about our community, its location and proximity to the Westbank First Nation lands. The city of Kelowna is situated on the east side of Okanagan Lake. The lake is approximately 140 kilometres long, running north to south, in the southern interior of British Columbia. We're located in the central Okanagan, and Westbank First Nation lands are located immediately across the lake from Kelowna. The lake is approximately one mile wide at that point. Our two areas are connected by a floating bridge. Westbank First Nation and the city of Kelowna are part of the same vibrant economy, and our relationship is good. Our city has a population of 103,000. It's situated in the regional district of central Okanagan, with a population of 158,000. Included in that are the Westbank First Nation lands, and we heard earlier that they have a population of about 600 Westbank First Nation members and 8,000 non-natives occupying leased lands.

    My comments today will be brief, but first I want the committee to know that Kelowna city council is on record as supporting the principle of self-government for Westbank First Nation. We believe this would give first nations people the dignity, responsibility, and opportunity to be masters of their own destiny. We believe, as Chief Louie said twice earlier, they do have an inherent right to govern themselves.

    Having said that, we must be cautious in the details, so as not to unfairly impose a change to well-established principles off the reserve lands. Specifically in the case of Kelowna, anything that would negatively impact the citizens I serve would of course not be supported.

    With respect to the self-government agreement proposal itself, our one concern on the agreement is part X, Westbank lands and land management. I believe it's section 102, additional reserve lands. I've seen earlier drafts, and those numbers get moved around, but I believe it's section 102.

    Kelowna has difficulty with the notion that, and I'm quoting section 102, “landsacquired by Westbank First Nation may be transferred to Canada for the purpose of beingset apart as lands reserved for Indians under subsection 91(24) of the Constitution Act,1867 and as reserves for the use and benefit of Westbank First Nation within the meaningof that term under the Indian Act.”

    We interpret that to mean that Westbank First Nation under the agreement could purchase, for example, a piece of property or building in downtown Kelowna, as an example, and apply to the minister for reserve status, which, if approved, would mean that this property would be removed from the tax roll in our community. Yet taxpaying Kelowna citizens would have to maintain and supply all off-service requirements, such as parking, that might be needed due to the activity on the Westbank First Nation's purchase and impact on adjacent landowners.

    While we understand the minister may consult with the city, we believe that it is Kelowna's entitlement to control and tax all properties within our municipal boundaries. We have obviously no quarrel with Westbank First Nation or members of the band being property owners in our city, but they must pay taxes on the same basis as any other citizen or business owner. That's the position we take in Kelowna.

½  (1945)  

    We would ask that section 102 of part X be removed from the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, or that the wording be altered so as to protect Kelowna's interests with respect to payment of property taxes.

    In summary, we support Westbank First Nation's desire for self-government. We applaud them for that initiative. We sympathize with them that this has taken so long--14 years, I believe we heard Chief Louie say. However, please examine section 102 with respect to additional reserve lands, as they could impact Kelowna if within Kelowna's boundaries.

    I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I'll respond to any questions you may have.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell): Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

    I'm just sitting in for the chair. I'm the vice-chair.

    Next on the list is Kat Maurmann. I think we're going to listen to all the witnesses and then have the questions.

    Ms. Maurmann, please. You have five minutes.

    Ms. Kat Maurmann (As Individual): Thank you.

    Good evening, Mr. Chairman and committee members. We are here to present the beliefs, concerns, and general thoughts non-members have about the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement.

    First, I would like to introduce John Reddick and myself to the committee and why we are in the position to comment on our beliefs in support of the self-government agreement.

    John Reddick has been a member of the Westbank First Nation Interim Advisory Council since June 2001 and has lived on Westbank lands since November 1995.

    In 1998 the Westbank First Nation set up a residents' ad hoc committee and invited representatives of non-members living on Westbank lands to participate. The role of this ad hoc committee was to develop a mechanism that allowed non-members input into matters that directly or significantly affected them. Mr. Reddick, who at that time was on the board of directors of Sun Village Homeowners Association, was one of these active participants deeply involved in establishing what we now call the Westbank Interim Advisory Council.

    I am Katja Maurmann, known as Kat, and have lived on Westbank lands since October 1997. I also was an active participant in the residents' ad hoc committee meetings in 1998 and was vice-chair of the Bayview Homeowners Association. I continued my involvement by appointment to the Westbank First Nation Interim Advisory Council in 1999 and was elected as the chair of the interim advisory council by my peers, the appointed members. I am now into the sixth year of a working relationship with the Westbank First Nation to represent the interests of the non-members living on Westbank lands.

    First, I think it only fair that we speak on what it is like being a non-member living in our community. We emphasize “community”, not reserve lands, because it is a thriving, vibrant community. When one drives through--and one must, to get to the neighbouring towns--you see beautiful homes on beautiful lands, parks and thriving businesses, served by excellent roadways, no different from the next town. In fact, one cannot make a physical distinction between Kelowna's west side, the town of Westbank, and the Westbank lands. A seamless division exists within our neighbouring communities.

    Both the members and non-members on the reserve take extreme pride in their homes and lifestyles. We all have services that are comparable to other communities and live harmoniously together. If you were to ask what it is like living on the Westbank lands, on the reserve, simply put, it is enjoyable. It's fun; it's great.

    It is true that the community at large did not know that Westbank First Nation began negotiating the framework for the self-government agreement in 1999. When the Westbank First Nation chief and council signed the self-government agreement in principle in 1998, a public announcement was made to the community. This was the beginning of many public information meetings. Part of this process also was to bring together members of the community to form, as I'd mentioned before, the residents' ad hoc committee to discuss the self-government agreement and a mechanism by which non-members would have representation and input.

    In the beginning, there was much confusion--at the residents' ad hoc committee level, one could even say fear, driven in part, as always, by the unknown. Considerable time was spent having questions answered and just making sense of what a self-government agreement meant. For most of us, it required considerable studying, as with many legal documents.

½  (1950)  

    The question was never whether the Westbank First Nation had a right to self-govern; questions arose around the impact it would have on non-members in the areas of land leases and taxation, areas in which most Canadians feel vulnerable.

    How we could have representation in the matters that affected us as residents of the Westbank lands was always the most common question. Such arguments presented themselves around, as you probably have heard, taxation without representation. Some felt it would only work if non-members were allowed a vote and a seat, just as a band member did at the Westbank First Nation band and council level. Others recognized that this was not practical, simply because of the large number of non-members living on Westbank lands.

    Much has been done by the Westbank First Nation to inform, to enlighten, and to work with the non-member residents to address these concerns. So here we sit, as working members of the interim advisory council, to present constructive and positive feedback we have received through various stages of what we would like to refer to as a “work in progress”, and to inform the standing committee that we believe the majority of non-members are not opposed to the self-government agreement.

    Fact: most resident non-members feel that the mechanism of an advisory council will allow ample democratic input by non-members, provided the advisory council is established in a similar manner and formed as any other municipal council, involving elections, rules, regulations, and responsibilities.

    Non-members feel that a law establishing the advisory council has to be a law of substance, which should include spelling out the terms such as “taxation”, “budgets”, “by-law establishment”, “capital improvements”, and in particular, a dispute resolution mechanism between the Westbank First Nation and non-members. In short, it has to be a law that prevents the advisory council from becoming merely window dressing.

    We have been operating as an interim council for the last five years, and this has been a valuable learning process for both parties. Like any new endeavour, it has been frustrating, and at times quite frustrating, simply because we are breaking new ground.

    Out of this experience, and together with input from residents, we are currently developing a draft law taking into account all relevant matters, including role and structure of the advisory council, duties and responsibilities, elections, which would include the terms “eligibility”, “appeals”, etc., removal from office, petitions to the advisory council, disputes between advisory council and the Westbank First Nation, confidentiality, conflict of interest, and oath of office. These recommendations will be presented to the Westbank First Nation for the development of the law establishing the advisory council.

    In closing, section 54 of the self-government agreement states:

Non-Members living on Westbank Lands or having an interest in Westbank Lands shall be provided in Westbank Law with mechanisms through which they may have input into proposed Westbank Law and proposed amendments to Westbank Law that directly and significantly affect such non-Members.

    The establishment of an advisory council is the proposed mechanism of choice. We say that again. It's the proposed mechanism of choice by the non-members and the Westbank First Nation as the forum to fairly represent the interests of residents on the reserve.

    We believe this is a bold and unique step, which can serve as a model for future self-government agreements. This model can only work if proper safeguards are built into the law to protect the interests of both the non-member residents and the Westbank First Nation, and if good faith is demonstrated by both parties.

½  (1955)  

    Mr. Chair and committee members, I thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our beliefs, concerns, and general thoughts.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll proceed with Len Novakowski, director for the Westside Electoral Area. You have five minutes, please. Afterwards, we'll go to Aaron Dinwoodie.

    Mr. Len Novakowski (Director, Westside Electoral Area, Regional District of Central Kelowna): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

    I am one of three electoral area directors who represent the Westside area of the Central Okanagan Regional District.

    Area Westside is a designated rural area, and as such has regional directors as local government representatives, as compared to councillors in a municipality. Within Westside's geographical area, there are two Westbank First Nation areas, IR 9 and IR 10. Of the Westside's total population of approximately 34,000, between 7,000 and 8,000 non-natives and approximately 600 natives live on Westbank First Nation's land.

    As you probably know, Westbank First Nation has its own government in the form of chief and council and it is not part of the regional government. However, Westbank has an agreement with the regional district, which provides approximately 18 different services to the residents of band land.

    As neighbours living in the same area, we have an obvious need to work together as partners. In dealing with local issues we need to be able to work with each other without relying on consent from a higher level of government. The regional district has the necessary autonomy to do this, but Westbank First Nation is hindered by the Indian Act.

    As a local elected official, I feel that Westbank First Nation needs a self-government agreement that allows it to work with us in an unrestricted manner like other local governments. My review of the self-government agreement before you indicates to me that it gives Westbank First Nation the necessary tools to do this without infringing unacceptably on the rights of others.

    In conclusion, let me say that I strongly support Westbank First Nation in their pursuit of self-government.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¾  (2000)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'll go to Mr. Dinwoodie. You have five minutes.

    Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie (Director, Westside Electoral Area, Regional District of Central Kelowna): Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

    My name is Aaron Dinwoodie. Like Len Novakowski, I am with the Westside Electoral Area, and that is the basis on which I make this representation. My experience is also as chair of the Westbank Treaty Advisory Committee, former chair of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities aboriginal affairs committee, first vice-president of the UBCM, and liaison to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities standing committee on municipal-aboriginal relations.

    With that, I'm here to speak about the local government process that came to our local government in the Okanagan at the regional district board, which includes the city of Kelowna, the District of Lake Country, the district municipality of Peachland, and at the time three electoral areas. There used to be two on the west side and one on the east side of the lake. The two on the west side of the lake have been combined, and we've been going through somewhat of a governance review of our own community.

    With that presentation at our regional board in the early days, we also received presentations on the regional advisory committee that was set up to monitor the B.C. treaty process. These were also forwarded to the other area associations I mentioned previously in my discussion.

    In terms of those presentations and the initial concerns of local government, as Mayor Gray has said--and I don't want to repeat his comments but to add to them--we had difficulty, I guess, as a local government understanding the bilateral process since we were so tied to the trilateral B.C. treaty process. We also had difficulty with the original drafts of the self-government agreement. There was no real definition around non-member representation, and issues on labour also came up.

    I think the biggest thing, which Len touched on, was trying to understand the differences between a self-government agreement and the powers that we were legislated under within our own jurisdiction. We spent a lot of time on that, and it's where a lot of our focus was.

    With that, our local government worked with the first nation to thoroughly understand that agreement and understand the direct intersection of impacts with regard to the local government-first nation relationship. With that, I'm here to say that Westbank First Nation was a strong proponent of keeping local government tied in all along the process through the different advisory committee structure bodies, and worked with both the Regional District of Central Okanagan as well as the City of Kelowna in determining protocols of recognition that brought us together in defined forums to discuss our issues of mutual understanding with regard to issues and tasking our administrations.

    We had a 1999 protocol agreement. We're due to sign another protocol agreement in March of this year, 2004. We've really worked on building these agreements in the communities. We already have sewer and service agreements. And we've been working on creative ways to actually build hybrids where, government-to-government between the Westbank First Nation and the Regional District of Central Okanagan, we can work and decide and enter into processes within referendums for local services in the community, to provide the opportunity for citizens of both first nations land as well as non-members of first nations land, as well as the overall community, to actually vote.

    We just had such a vote on the Mount Boucherie recreation complex. It passed in our local community by 70% or so. That's working together, trying to put direct democratic tools into the hands of everybody.

    With regard to that, I'd also like to say that the board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan is on record with an 11-to-0 vote of support for the Westbank self-government agreement.

    With that, without repeating Walter Gray's representations, I think there are feelings more of confusion and misunderstanding in some areas, such as the access to representation and how it works, for those who did not attend local community meetings. There's confusion with regard to charter issues--whether they'll apply or not apply--and education on the difference between the self-government agreement and municipal powers.

    With that, I believe local government in the area, especially Westbank First Nation, has worked very hard to try to do an extensive process within the community to try to alleviate and provide proper education on these particular issues.

    With regard to the higher-level charter issues, I trust that this committee will look into them and cautiously go through the details, but in that, I believe there's been a full and extensive process in the local community.

    With regard to some of the concerns and misunderstandings, I think in earlier presentations there was mention of past history. I think this agreement has gone a long way to actually backstop and put in place mechanisms for everyone who lives on Westbank First Nation lands and also for the cross-connection between the local community and senior governments so that we wind up with something that not only improves the quality of life but also provides mechanisms for those it serves.

¾  (2005)  

    With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and I encourage you to move forward on a principled basis as you debate and discuss the self-government agreement. I congratulate the Westbank First Nation and the Government of Canada for working in good faith on this issue.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Duncan.

    Mr. John Duncan: I don't know how to do this--we've got four witnesses. Mayor Gray made the first presentation, and he did have a significant issue related to section 102 of the agreement, regarding additions to Westbank and concerns about municipal lands. I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Westbank representatives to address that. Walter, I'm doing that on the basis that there is a policy, based on earlier testimony today from Westbank, that clarifies that issue. Robert, if you could do that at this point, that might be useful.

    Chief Robert Louie: Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and good evening, Mayor Gray.

    On the question you raised with regard to the land in Kelowna and your concerns about its becoming reserve land at the Westbank First Nation's request, I can assure you very clearly that the self-government agreement would apply to reserve lands. If we were to ask you and council members to give us ten acres of reserve in downtown Kelowna, I expect, as you've clearly indicated, your answer would be no. We would need to approach the Province of British Columbia. The province is required to give consent, and according to the additions to reserve land policy, it would be required to come to you, the city, and local government, the community, to ask if you would agree. If you did not agree, I think the answer would be very simple: there would be no reserve in downtown Kelowna. That's how we see the agreement, and that is clearly enunciated in the agreement context itself.

    However, I would add this. As you know, we are also in the treaty negotiation process, a separate process from the self-government agreement, and we will again be asking the consent of the province and Canada to add to our reserve land base. So we may be approaching you in the future along a different avenue, and that would be the treaty negotiation process.

    I can assure you at this time that our council and our community haven't looked to downtown Kelowna. We have looked in other areas surrounding the municipality of Kelowna, we have looked at various sites. Again, this would be a matter of negotiations with Canada and the Province of British Columbia, and it clearly would involve yourself and the local government, for acceptance of any lands that might be added to the reserve base under the treaty negotiation process.

¾  (2010)  

    Mr. Walt Gray: Mr. Chairman, would I be able to respond?

    The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

    Mr. Walt Gray: Okay, thank you.

    I hear Chief Louie, and of course we know one another. He has a lot of credibility, and we certainly have no issue with the current chief or council, but as elected officials, we all know that elections and people come and go. What we're looking for is some sort of certainty. We certainly don't want to stand in the way of progress with Westbank First Nation. In fact, the contrary is true; we want to cooperate and work with them to be successful.

    But clearly, the point we want to make is that there has to be some assurance, whether it's within this agreement or some other way, that we would not be creating two classes of property owners in the city of Kelowna, meaning property owners who pay taxes, or all of the property owners who currently exist, and the possibility at a future date of a non-taxpaying property owner, through reserve status, such as Westbank First Nation.

    I am not entirely sure that we get to tell the province or the federal government or the federal minister that we don't want something and therefore it won't happen. I believe what we're talking about is consultation that occurs, not consent that's required. That's our only nervousness. There is certainly no suspicion or any issues with Westbank First Nation; it's simply that we do not want their agreement to impose a situation on our city where we could have property owner non-taxpayers in the future. It's just as simple as that.

    Maybe I should add one other thing—and Chief Louie would be aware of this, and it was obliquely referred to earlier—that there has in fact been a negotiation and a relationship between Westbank First Nation and the city on the properties in Gallagher's Canyon, which are many hundreds of acres. There wasn't a lot at stake in this particular case. The properties are at the extreme east end of the city limits on a dead-end road, where 101 square miles of the city of Kelowna.... In good faith, Westbank First Nation actually did negotiate service agreements, and we're happy with them. But now that they're asking for self-government—which we support—we just ask for that one protection that we believe is important to the city of Kelowna.

    The Chair: You have one minute.

    Mr. John Duncan: I just want to give a minute to Mr. Dinwoodie, because I think he wanted to get in on this conversation.

    Am I correct?

    Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie: Yes.

    For the very reasons that Walter Gray is talking about, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is currently seeking, in their ATR project with the federal government, a definition of process. So I'd just like to re-ask Walter's question in a very succinct way to, I guess, the legal counsel for the negotiators of this agreement, which I think will help alleviate that concern.

    I think the question with regard to ATR policy is that the public out in the greater community needs to know that first nations have access to that policy with or without this particular agreement. What has to be separated is how this agreement either changes or alters the existing federal ATR policy, rather than confusing the two, so that there is defined clarity on that particular issue. That would be my question.

    Thank you.

¾  (2015)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Monsieur Menczer, for 30 seconds.

    Mr. Micha Menczer: At the risk of betraying my profession, I'll give a short answer.

    This agreement has nothing to do with additions to reserve policy. With or without the agreement, the issues remain the same, so it simply states the status quo. So Mayor Gray's concerns exist today without self-government, and they will be worked out in additions to reserve policy; but clearly, this agreement does not change in any way the status quo on that matter.

    Mr. Walt Gray: Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely aware of that. I know that the Indian Act provides for this now, but what Westbank First Nation is asking for is to rewrite the book, and to have a local government arrangement. Because they're rewriting the book, then we want to be sure that the provision that exists now in the Indian Act is eliminated.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Gray. That's appreciated.

    Mr. Bagnell, you have seven minutes.

    Hon. Larry Bagnell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I haven't been speaking very much. I had lots of questions for all the witnesses, but I'm trying to give the opposition and my colleagues as much time as possible.

    Just on this one point, I did want to basically say the same thing, Mr. Mayor. It is the same before and after. I'm not sure that it would be fair or that it would be very easy to negotiate something that takes away rights from people. Your concern is real, but there is nothing different before and after. I'm glad the federation came and started working on that, actually, because it's a good policy to discuss with the federal government from a municipal standpoint, but that applies across the entire nation. The policy would, in fairness to all municipalities, have to be altered and discussed. I don't think it would be fair to ask one particular first nation to be in a disadvantage to the rest in the nation. As we're putting it in place practically, we're not doing it against the wishes of any province or municipality anywhere in the country. Until you get it technically changed, there's not a practical worry at the moment either.

    I don't know if you would like to comment on that.

    Mr. Walt Gray: Well, simply, if section 102 is eliminated from the agreement and Parliament agrees to their self-government agreement, with section 102 removed--and we support their self-government, we've said that many times, and we mean that sincerely--then clearly one thing they would be giving up would be that right to purchase land in the city of Kelowna, with the intent of applying for reserve status.

    Now, purchasing land in the city of Kelowna, I would encourage them to do that--that's not a problem--but on the same basis as anyone else. It's simply the threat--if I can use that term--not because it would become reserve land, but the threat that it would be land that no longer paid tax, as every other property owner does.

    Hon. Larry Bagnell: But as I was saying, the federal policy that could occur right now--

    Mr. Walt Gray: I know that.

¾  (2020)  

    Hon. Larry Bagnell: --and with or without this agreement.... We're not doing it without the consent of the municipality and the province. Although it doesn't say specific consent, that's the way we're operating. You wouldn't have this separate category of land unless the municipality of Kelowna chose to have that. There may be some benefit at some time. Other municipalities in Saskatchewan, for instance, have chosen to have that category of land within their boundaries. At some other time I could go over the advantages and why they did that. There were some economic benefits to them. That wouldn't occur without Kelowna's assent. Before or after this agreement, there's no difference.

    Mr. Walt Gray: If what you're saying is that it would require Kelowna's consent, then I have no problem. But I believe it only requires the minister to consult under the Indian Act. If it's the case that we do have the ability to consent to the request, then that's fine. You're correct. In the future, there may be some reason we want to, even though we do have to forgive taxes. There could be a first nations museum or something that they wanted to place in say our arts district. We would welcome that. We may see it as a good deal for Kelowna to forgive them the tax. So if the word “consent” were somehow included in section 102, then we would applaud that.

    Hon. Larry Bagnell: As I was saying, I think that would be a good negotiation to have with the federal government on the policy as a whole. But at the moment, you're right. The policy that applies across Canada does not have the word “consent”, but we're applying it as if it does have the word “consent”. We're not making those arrangements unless we do have the consent and agreement of the municipality and the province. That's how it's being implemented at the moment. I haven't heard anyone suggest that we change that, but it doesn't mean that the federation shouldn't have that debate with the federal government.

    Mr. Walt Gray: Thank you very much for the dialogue. I appreciate that. I'm very happy that we're being heard. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Bagnell.

    Monsieur Day, with one minute and a half, and one minute and a half for Monsieur Vellacott, and after Monsieur Laliberte. At 8:30 the meeting will be finished for tonight.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Mayor Gray, good to see you. I don't know if you can see us. I guess you can now. I can sincerely say I wish I were there.

    Mr. Walt Gray: But you do have your lovely Okanagan tan.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Exactly right.

    I would like to ask--this would be primarily to Aaron, I would think, but the mayor could interject on this--in the whole process of consultation, especially with the business community, and knowing that there are some 200 businesses on Westbank First Nation land, especially on the west side, have there been concerns raised about the agreement as it's coming forward? I think primarily this would go to Mr. Dinwoodie, but Walter, feel free if you have anything to add to that.

    Mr. Walt Gray: I don't think I can add anything, but Kat, who was an earlier respondent representing the residents' association, might want to comment.

    Ms. Kat Maurmann: John can respond. John hasn't spoken yet.

    The Chair: Could you please give me your name?

    Mr. John Reddick (As Individual): My name is John Reddick, and I am a member of the interim advisory council.

    To answer your question, Mr. Day, I can say that to my knowledge there really has been no indication from the business community, and I have no knowledge of them having any concern about the self-government agreement.

    As far as the advisory council is concerned, the feeling has always been that businesses on the west side were well able to take care of their own concerns and have tended to do it directly with the Westbank First Nation.

    Mr. Stockwell Day: As I understand it, there has not been unanimity on the interim advisory council regarding concerns with the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement. Can you comment on that?

    Mr. John Reddick: That's correct. There was a representative on the advisory council who was representing Lake Ridge who in fact resigned basically because that person frankly didn't feel that the advisory council was actually functioning, or felt that it wasn't being listened to by the Westbank First Nation. But that was the opinion of that particular person, and I think I'm safe in saying that all other representatives on the advisory council are in support of the self-government agreement.

    Let me just say this, if I may continue on that. That is not to say that during the course of our dealings with the Westbank First Nation as an advisory council--because we represent the interests of non-members, essentially--there haven't been times when there have been disagreements and when there might have been frustrations. This is because now the advisory council is asking probing questions with respect to, let's say, issues of budgets and taxation for capital expenditures. We've asked for answers, and I am sure the Westbank First Nation found that somewhat difficult at first, because now they were being questioned on things they hadn't been questioned about before. But it's a learning process, and I think as we have gone on, there has been growing respect and mutual trust on both sides .

¾  (2025)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Vellacott, you have--

    Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Chair, Mr. Dinwoodie has not yet answered the question about--

    The Chair: You have one minute.

    Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie: Speaking succinctly to the business community, the Westbank First Nation not only participates on our local Westbank and District Chamber of Commerce, it also participates in our economic development commission. Both these bodies are well ahead of the curve. It is a fantastic, strong, meaningful relationship, and there is a new protocol that's being developed with the help of our committee member, Len Novakowski, and the Westbank First Nation to actually set up for this agreement, to work on common economic development and to actually work on common land use through the exchange of bylaws so they can get into servicing strategy. The support from the business community, both at the chamber of commerce level and at the economic development commission level, has been strong and succinct, and there has been a very good dialogue between the two.

    I'll just close off with a final comment, because I think it's important. The federal government in Canada, in presentations--and this is really to address Walter's question with regard to consent--has consistently verbally presented to us that it takes municipal consent and provincial consent with regard to the ATR policy, and the ATR policy is in place with or without this agreement. Those are the representations we've had from the Government of Canada when they've come into our community.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    You have one minute.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a question, I guess, probably to Mr. Gray, mayor of Kelowna, if he's still there. If the screen comes up, I'd like to ask a question.

    The issue is simply with the urban reserves. Does it not satisfy you that, at least in some small part, when there is land bought in the city or purchased in the city, in lieu of taxes, you can charge--I think it's for 20 or 25 years, whatever that tax total would be--for fire protection services, sewer, water, and so on? You would maybe like to see the formula changed so that it's a bigger amount, running for 50 years or something like that. You're probably aware of the provision. Is that not somewhat of an offset to the issue of taxes for you?

    Mr. Walt Gray: No. Maybe I don't totally understand the question, but we don't plan for 50 years. I wish we did.

    In any event, when it comes to service agreements and those types of things, they can be handled. In fact, we have experience with Westbank First Nation on that very subject, to do with lands, already in the city of Kelowna.

    Maybe I don't quite understand.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Very quickly, then, in the province of Saskatchewan, for example, that's how it's dealt with there. With lands, urban reserves in the city of Saskatoon, for example, there's some dispute as to whether the formula should be changed, but in lieu of taxes is a large lump-sum payment to have sewage, fire protection services, and all those things.

    A deal, a negotiation, happens between the first nation and the city to provide those services, because they otherwise sit there on this island without the services. If they can't provide them themselves, then they're out of luck. They work out these agreements with the city in the context in which they are. There's obviously no template for that in B.C. as yet, I gather.

    Mr. Walt Gray: Well, I couldn't really comment because I don't know what it's like in Saskatchewan. I do know that there are property taxes, and that money goes to general administration of the municipalities. The other services you speak of are often provided by utilities and what not. They are additional.

    Westbank First Nation actually has experience with the kind of thing you're talking about in the regional district around Kelowna, but not within the city limits. We don't have any active working arrangements now, except for an agreement in principle with respect to lands that they have, which are now reserve lands at the far east section of our city, as I referred to earlier. It's very rural and wouldn't impact in any particular way on surrounding lands. We don't feel threatened by that. In fact, we feel quite encouraged by our relationship with Westbank First Nation on that.

    I'm sorry if my answer isn't quite addressing your question, because I'm not entirely sure that I understand the question.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

    I finish the meeting tonight for everybody.

    Thank you very much, the people in Kelowna. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, everybody.

    Thank you, MPs.

[Translation]

    I would like to thank the interpreters, the support staff, the clerks, the researchers, the witnesses as well as all the committee members.

[English]

    Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

    Tomorrow morning, the meetings are at 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock, Room 269, West Block. Tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock is clause-by-clause.

[Translation]

    We will proceed with clause-by-clause study tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

[English]

    Thank you very much.