AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 17, 1999

• 1403

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): I now call the meeting to order. Welcome, everyone.

The order of the day is Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement. We are commencing meeting ten, but before we start I would like to welcome the public and invite any member of the public who has a brief to leave it here with the clerk or mail it to the House of Commons, in Ottawa, in care of the clerk of this committee.

Before we introduce our witnesses today, I want to make a suggestion that I'm sure the committee will accommodate. We are going from 2 o'clock to 4:30 with two witnesses, Foster Griezic and Terry Glavin. Mr. Glavin has a plane to catch. I found out from the two witnesses that they are prepared to go one after the other, as opposed to individually, to allow Mr. Glavin to catch his plane later today. Does anybody have any objection to that? We could still hear it as a panel if you wished.

Seeing no objections, I'm going to welcome Mr. Glavin, whose testimony will go to 3:15, and then we'll switch witnesses and go from 3:15 to 4:30. So it will be the same amount of time, just individually.

• 1405

Before we commence with Mr. Glavin's testimony, I would like to invite the committee to introduce themselves. Again this afternoon I'll commence with the local members of Parliament who have substituted in today to join us.

Mr. Hill, please introduce yourself.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): I think everybody here knows who I am, after this morning.

The Chair: This is a new meeting.

Mr. Hill is the member of Parliament locally.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): I'm Jim Gouk, the Reform member of Parliament for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): My name is Claude Bachand and I am the Member for Saint-Jean, a riding located 25 miles South of Montreal. I am also the Bloc Québecois critic for Indian Affairs.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): My name is Ghislain Fournier and I am a member of the Bloc Québecois. I represent the riding of Manicouagan on Quebec's North Shore

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I'm Louise Hardy, member of Parliament for the Yukon.

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

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I'm John O'Reilly of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock in beautiful central Ontario.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): And they don't cheer for the Maple Leafs.

I'm Raymond Bonin, deputy for Nickel Belt in northern Ontario.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'm John Finlay, member for Oxford County in southwestern Ontario and vice-chair of the committee.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I'm Nancy Karetak-Lindell, member of Parliament for Nunavut, the new territory in the eastern Canadian Arctic.

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

The Chair: Also present are Mary Hurley and Tonina Simeone, who are researchers with the Library of Parliament who serve this committee; the clerk of the committee, Christine Fisher; and another clerk, a legislative assistant, Richard Dupuis, also serving this committee.

I'm Sue Barnes. I'm the member of Parliament for London West in southwestern Ontario and chair of this committee.

We've all had a nice lunch break. We'll start fresh with this meeting. After hearing the witnesses, we'll go to five-minute rounds. I think it will be unnecessary to keep order this afternoon. I would like to return to allowing parties to share their time, with the proviso that the five minutes is five minutes in total. I know it's difficult to get two people asking questions and receiving answers in five minutes. Those wishing to do that should be very careful.

If the question finishes at the five-minute mark, leaving no time for someone to answer, I will have to go on to the next person. I will try to control it in that manner, but that way it doesn't disturb what is practical and normal in this committee. I will ask the cooperation of all the people in the room so that we can have that happen again.

Mr. Glavin, you're welcome to start at any time.

Mr. Terry Glavin (Individual Presentation): Thanks very much, and good afternoon. You'll have to excuse me, because I'm kind of nervous. I don't usually do this kind of thing, but I am going to give it my best.

I come to these discussions from two rather broad areas of interest and relevance to the Nisga'a treaty, particularly the fisheries component and its implications. The first is about British Columbian culture and history, and the second is about the salmon fisheries of the coast.

My interest in culture comes from my work as a writer. I've written several books about British Columbia's unique cultural geography, about the relationship between the aboriginal and settler cultures of British Columbia, and about the fisheries of the coast. I am the editor of a book series known as Transmontanus, which publishes titles about these very subjects. I've also written for a number of newspapers over the years. During most of the ten years that I worked for the Vancouver Sun, I was the newspaper's native affairs and fisheries reporter. I've often written extensively about these issues for a number of magazines and newspapers, such as the Globe and Mail and Canadian Geographic, and what not, and continue to do so.

I've worked with aboriginal people in a variety of settings. When the B.C. Treaty Commission was established or opened its doors about five years ago, I was one of its first analysts. I've worked with first nations groups on the lower Fraser River, mainly on fisheries and conservation issues and in developing cooperative fisheries initiatives between native and non-native fishermen.

• 1410

I've also worked with commercial fishermen and with the Steelhead Society of B.C., who are recreational fishermen, the David Suzuki Foundation, and other conservation groups in fisheries projects. At present I'm a member of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

These areas, to a lot of people, particularly outside of British Columbia, in the Maritimes, Ontario and Quebec, might seem unconnected. But it has to be understood that in British Columbia salmon, culture, history, and aboriginal rights are almost always part of the same conversation.

I've prepared a fairly lengthy brief that I've left with the clerk of the committee, and in it I address a number of issues. I try to put the Nisga'a treaty and its implications, particularly with respect to its fisheries component, in the context of British Columbian culture and history. I argue as well that British Columbians take salmon very seriously in ways that people east of the Rockies must necessarily find hard to understand. My sympathy goes to the people of Quebec particularly.

I think one of the ways I've tried to describe it to people is that in Quebec there are the issues of language, and in British Columbia we have salmon. Quebec has the St. Jean Baptiste Day parade, and we have the fishing season. It's that serious.

So we're not necessarily all that articulate about these things at the best of times, but these matters and the whole question of aboriginal title and rights go to the very heart of British Columbian society. These matters are central to our origin myth, to borrow a term from the anthropologists. The present controversies that flow from the Nisga'a treaty are in many ways mere echoes of the issues that confronted British Columbian society during the colonial period, at the time of its entry into Confederation in 1871 and ever since.

What I would like to deal with here without commenting at length about the fisheries component.... Part of my problem is that if you get me going about fish I never shut up. I really like fish. I'm interested in fish and I'm interested in salmon. So I'm going to confine my comments to what I regard, partly because of my interest as a writer and my interest in language, as the importance of precision in language in order for the public to comprehend the significance of the issues the committee members are dealing with.

What I argue in the brief is that in order for the general public to comprehend the significance of the Nisga'a treaty and what it really means it's necessary for people to understand that in fact it arises from the equal application of the law to all British Columbians. So long as people are being misled into believing that it arises as a consequence of rights based on race then it becomes extremely difficult if not impossible to engage in any rational or public debate about the treaty or to judge the treaty on its own merits.

There is a wide array of opinions, both pro and con, that are perfectly valid and reasonable with respect to the Nisga'a treaty, but because most British Columbians are obliged to resort to a very narrow spectrum of opinions that appear in the news organizations that dominate the media in British Columbia, there has been a tendency to limit British Columbians to a narrow perspective about the Nisga'a treaty itself. And the ability of the public to reach intelligent conclusions about the nature of aboriginal and treaty rights has been severely impaired as a consequence of the deliberate and pervasive misrepresentation of aboriginal rights as rights based on race.

I think it's very important for the general public—and I think this crosses the entire political spectrum—that it must be made plain that the rights of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia do not arise from their racial characteristics. The belief that has crept into the public consciousness, the terminology that has found its way into the lexicon we use to discuss these issues, has poisoned the public debate to a great extent in British Columbia, to the extent that many British Columbians have been rendered utterly incapable of understanding what their governments are doing and why they are doing it. As a consequence, they have been reduced to varying degrees of hysteria and paranoia and stridency.

When I talk about the equal application of the law I mean the fundamental principle of the English common law as it applies in British Columbia, which has always recognized that cutomary laws evolve over time from the beneficial exercise of various customs, traditions, and practices. Extending this principle to the customs, traditions, and practices of aboriginal societies and to the recognition of aboriginal customary laws is necessary for the simple fact that at the time crown sovereignty was asserted here in 1846 there were already societies in place, self-governing societies with their own systems of law. These people as a consequence are vested with certain rights that arise from those customs, traditions, and practices. This would be so even if all those people had been brown or green, or purple or striped, or polka-dotted or white or a combination of those colours.

• 1415

I don't deny that the existence of these rights makes the Constitution and legal landscape very complicated and difficult to navigate. But British Columbia is unique in the respect that it has not concluded treaties to make this landscape a little bit more simple for people to comprehend. It's also unique in the respect that west of the Rockies.... I think this also is something that's important for the committee members to understand.

When I flew here this morning from Vancouver to Prince George, I covered more linguistic boundaries than I would have covered on the flight from Moscow to Madrid. Of the eleven distinct linguistic families in Canada, seven of them occurred and occur in what is now British Columbia. And within those linguistic families there are some thirty languages that are as different from one another as Punjabi and French. So it's complicated, and it's not just complicated because certain politicians have decided to put off the business of treaty-making one succeeding generation after the other until it has fallen to us to deal with these sorts of things.

This presents a very complex landscape. Personally, I am not dismayed by the complexity of this landscape. As a Canadian and a British Columbian, I am in fact proud that these things are so. It is my country, and I find no cause to be ashamed of the complexity of my country's cultural, linguistic, and constitutional heritage.

It seems to me that the negotiation of treaties is the wisest way to negotiate our way through this sort of a landscape. This is the course the Nisga'a have chosen to take. In the case of the Nisga'a people their rights arise from their own customs, traditions, and practices by the operation of their own customary laws.

In the ratification of the Nisga'a treaty I think it's important for people to understand that no federal or provincial government gave the Nisga'a people their original rights or their system of land title. No court granted the Nisga's their rights through this system of land title. They weren't handouts.

In the content of the Nisga'a treaty itself, particularly in its fisheries component, I think it is disingenuous, to say the very least, to identify any of its provisions, sentences, caveats, or codicils as instruments that set aside to the Nisga'a people any right, any responsibility, any obligation or any entitlement on the basis of their race or ethnicity.

The treaty and all of its provisions merely ensure that its beneficiaries will be the descendants of those people who have always been in the lawful possession of the traditional Nisga'a territory and its resources according to Nisga'a law, as Canadian and British legal and constitutional tradition recognizes that law.

It's the same as a commercial fisherman who hands down to his children his fishing licences or a forest company might hand down to his children rights of tenure to British Columbia's forests. So the Nisga'a treaty allows that the eligibility of the modest benefits the treaty provides might be passed on to the heirs and successors of those who ratified it and might continue to be enjoyed by their children and their children's children. To deny the ability of the Nisga'a to do this simply on the balance of probabilities that they are most likely to have black hair seems to me to be outrageous in the extreme.

I'm not going to dwell at length upon the fisheries agreement. I've dealt with that at length in my brief and I'm not going to say anything further than that.

I would conclude by observing that there's been a lot of talk—and I think the work of this committee has been raised in this same context—about both the alleged lack of consultation with British Columbians and the alleged ramming through of the Nisga'a legislation in Parliament.

I would observe that in British Columbia the debate spent in the provincial legislature on the Nisga'a enabling legislation was the longest debate that has ever occurred in the 128-year history of the British Columbia legislative assembly. Its 120 hours exceeded what I am advised was the longest debate ever to take place in the House of Commons, which was the 1964 flag debate. There has already been a provincial standing committee on aboriginal affairs that has toured the province and has dealt at length with these issues, and that is on top of all the other public consultation that has occurred.

• 1420

It is my considered and sincere belief that for whatever its faults, and for all the federal government's sins, your duty as elected representatives of British Columbians and Canadians is to do your job and get on with this job. And remember that while I believe it's a good start, there are 40 more treaties to go in British Columbia.

I think I'll conclude there. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Our first questioner today is Mr. Hill. Please commence.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll start with a comment.

Mr. Glavin, welcome to beautiful Prince George.

Mr. Glavin noted before he made his presentation, Madam Chair, that we were all in agreement, in order to accommodate him and ensure that he caught his airplane, that we would switch places between the witnesses. I would just wish that we would have granted the same accommodation to some of the people today from Prince George who would have liked the same common courtesy of being allowed to present a position.

In the interest of that, I'm going to pass to my colleague Mr. Gouk, because I certainly wouldn't want to prevent you from missing your airplane.

The Chair: Mr. Gouk, go ahead.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you, Madam Chair.

One of the things you mentioned is how we should recognize that there were systems of aboriginal law in place before we came here. I agree with you. We listened to that at length yesterday from the Gitxsan and Gitanyow people in the Smithers area. They said that there is aboriginal law and in the aboriginal law one of the most serious offences is the offence of trespass. They said the Nisga'a treaty is in violation of the law of trespass—in aboriginal law, Gitxsan law, Nisga'a law.

The Gitxsan and the Gitanyow have advised that 80% of the area that has been given to the Nisga'a by the provincial government, and endorsed by the federal government, is in fact their land. They said this is not only through oral history, which is acceptable, but it is in 130 years of documented history since we started documenting it, and everyone knows it. They said the original Nisga'a map for claim didn't include any of that, and then it was greatly expanded.

So when we talk in terms of them accepting 8% of the land, it is in fact 25% of their original claim that was Nisga'a land. So when you're talking in terms of we should respect aboriginal law, the aboriginal law is there. The Gitxsan and Gitanyow said they will uphold their law, they will defend their land, and this Nisga'a treaty is wrong. How do you respond to that?

Mr. Terry Glavin: I respond that I'm familiar with these issues. As a matter of fact, the first book I wrote was a book about Gitxsan customary laws. I'm quite familiar with the Gitxsan people. I'm quite familiar with the extent and breadth of the Gitxsan house territories. I'm familiar enough with the relationship between Gitxsan customary law and Nisga'a law to be confident that for.... I personally think there were aspects of the way that issue was dealt with by all three parties of the negotiating team that were clumsy and awkward.

It's easy for me to say that sort of thing in hindsight, but generally speaking in terms of the conflicts that do exist, people say certain things when they're given an opportunity and they're representing constituencies at these kinds of hearings in which negotiations are under way and significant legal and bargaining positions are on the table. I think the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow positions and the Nisga'a positions have to be seen in those sorts of lights. I am confident there is nothing in those disputes that is not adequately addressed either by the treaty itself or by the recourse to the courts that both parties have in that instance.

• 1425

Mr. Jim Gouk: Certainly the Gitxsan don't feel that way. They've said they tried to be a part of this process so they wouldn't have this problem. They invited the Nisga'a to their meetings as participants and they wouldn't come. And as they said yesterday, why should they, when they have two levels of government on their side? They do not have good faith in the legal system.

This is what we claim is wrong with why we're having to deal with redress for the Nisga'a because the white man took away something of theirs. Why should the Gitanyow and Gitxsan have to go to the white man's court to ask to have back what they say is already theirs? And how can they negotiate a treaty, which you're so much in favour of—I gather you're in favour of the treaty negotiation process, because you're supporting this one—if in fact what they want has already been given to the Nisga'a?

Mr. Terry Glavin: Nothing has been given to the Nisga'a. That's the first thing you have to understand.

The second thing you have to understand is that the application of the common law in this country is not confined to white people.

The third thing you have to understand is whatever emotional and impassioned speeches people might make about these questions on either side of the debate, the fact remains that crown sovereignty and aboriginal title do co-exist; they are mutually comprehensible. And there is nothing to prevent either the Nisga'a or the Gitxsan from resolving this issue in law, in the Canadian and the British Columbian court system. There is nothing to prevent third-party interests, when it's appropriate, or our governments, from resorting to the courts for guidance and direction in this particular issue.

I'm sorry, I don't see a great huge problem here. People can make speeches about it being like Bosnia and Chechnya, and that's all very interesting—

A voice: They're saying it themselves.

Mr. Terry Glavin: I don't care what they're saying. What I'm saying....

The Chair: Excuse me. I will just clarify that the witness will respond to the questioner here, not the audience. The audience will please allow the witness to continue his answer.

Mr. Terry Glavin: What I'm saying is that I do not, in spite of the rhetoric on both sides of this issue.... The Gitxsan are fully aware of my opinion on this, and we get along fine. This is about politics. This is about bargaining.

I understand how deeply particularly the Gitanyow feel about this situation, but I simply can't get all worked up about it, quite frankly. I don't think it's a big deal.

A voice: Can we afford to be wrong?

Mr. Terry Glavin: You asked my opinion and I'm giving you my opinion.

The Chair: Order, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Glavin, I would like to compliment you on your involvement in our committee and to thank you for your presentation.

During this first round of questions, I will simply start by saying that your comparison between the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parade and the fishing season here, in British Columbia, rather surprised me. If I might suggest, you could serve smoked salmon at the Saint- Jean-Baptiste parade next June 24th, and we could even send you some dancers wearing the arrowhead sash in honour of our salmon season, here in British Columbia. It would be a perfect way to tie everything together.

I have described on several occasions my vision of what led to this agreement and I would like to share it with you here today. I would be interested in knowing if you share my views on the course taken by this issue, from its beginnings to the signing of the agreement, which in my opinion, successfully incorporates all the various factors.

I often respond to this question by referring to the principles of equality and certainty. I know that our opponents often raise these concerns and claim that the situation is not equal and generates uncertainty. I will attempt to demonstrate that in fact, the opposite holds true.

• 1430

First and foremost, if we claim to have an open mind, we must acknowledge that Canada consists of several peoples: the people of Quebec, the people of Canada and the native peoples. In recognizing their existence, we must also immediately recognize their rights. It is often we, the legislators, who make the decision to recognize the rights of a people. Court rulings can influence our decisions and adjustments must sometimes be made. We must then attempt to see how a people can negotiate the terms of some sort of an agreement or partnership.

This agreement, which has been reached between the Parliament of British Columbia and the Nisga'a and which both parties have signed, will also be signed by the Parliament of Canada. That very act will eliminate any perceived uncertainty, since all aspects of the issue will have been considered and all parties will have reviewed them together. That is our end goal. Do you share in this democratic process which I have just described: recognition of a people and their rights and development of a partnership aimed at reconciling the various interests of the different stakeholders?

[English]

Mr. Terry Glavin: I think that was very well put and is precisely how I would put it. It also has to be said that there were human beings involved in the negotiation of this treaty. As a consequence, it is not perfect; we are all mere mortals. It's all very well and good to say what we might have liked to have in it, in hindsight, and make judgments about various aspects of it that not everyone agrees with. Not everyone will agree with any treaty that is negotiated, and some people will disagree with any treaty that is negotiated. That is the context within which this has to be understood. So I think your characterization of the evolution of this is quite sound.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madam Hardy, go ahead.

Ms. Louise Hardy: When I was listening to Chief Gosnell, he said they had gone through 17 different ministers. As a member of Parliament, just newly elected and on the committee, I feel that any input I have at this point will almost be immaterial. But the constant, of course, is that the first nations have been at the table for all these years.

I'm wondering if you could clarify something. The Gitanyow talked about their tribal laws, their ayookw, and the Nisga'a. You say the overlap isn't that significant, but they seem to see it as very significant. Could you explain it in terms of your knowledge of the first nations?

Mr. Terry Glavin: I should clarify this. I do not propose for a moment that when the Gitanyow and Gitxsan people express themselves about the scope and content of this treaty they're being anything less than perfectly sincere. I am just observing that on the face of it, I can find no cause to believe that the differences of opinion that prevail among the Gitxsan, the Gitanyow, and the Nisga'a are in any way irreconcilable or are a fatal flaw in the treaty.

I believe the treaty itself provides for an accommodation of any number of scenarios that might result in a resolution of this difference. I would also say that at the end of the day, the courts are always there and may be resorted to in order to assist the parties, as they try to make sense of all this. That's the purpose of courts in a civilized society.

Ms. Louise Hardy: What would you see the scenario being if for some reason this treaty were rejected at the parliamentary level? What would that mean to the treaty process in B.C.?

Mr. Terry Glavin: I think it would do far less damage to the treaty process, believe it or not, than to Canada's reputation. A minority of people don't seem to mind the prospect of British Columbia becoming a complete laughingstock in the community of civilized countries.

• 1435

I would also observe that the vast majority of British Columbians are fairly moderate, and moderate people don't usually stage press conferences, write press releases and make a big rumpus about everything.

I'm speaking only for myself. I don't represent any constituency. I don't have to worry about my ratings going down if I say something unfashionable, and I don't have to worry about getting elected. I look at this treaty in what it means to British Columbian society and Canadian society, and to what extent it might contribute to the healing, although I hate to use the term, because it's so fuzzy. But at the heart of British Columbian culture, there is a profound dysfunction.

You see, you can't tell a British Columbian story. As a people, our narrative erupts in arguments before the first few sentences are spoken because we cannot account for how we came to be here in a way that provides any sort of consensus. It's about a defining mythology that is necessary for any civil society to flourish and prosper in any kind of healthy way.

At the heart of this dysfunction is the unreconciled presence of crown sovereignty and aboriginal title. It's the single greatest cause of anger and distrust between native and non-native communities, which renders all of us insecure and unsure about our legitimate place in the landscape.

So it is not so much the presence of the Nisga'a treaty that I can speak for, in any sort of glowing emotional or supportive terms; it is the absence of the treaty—all the work that has been done, all the hopes of succeeding generations of Nisga'a people and the work of great chiefs, high-born people, for more than a century. To betray that trust, it is fair to say, would not go very far in resolving these wounds in British Columbian society.

The Chair: We are out of time now, so we'll move on to the next questioner.

Mr. Keddy, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to thank our witness for his presentation. It's never easy to come into a room where no one's in agreement and there are many issues to be discussed. One of the cornerstones of our democracy is the fact we can have interaction and hopefully informed and intelligent debate on any issue, and have our opinions heard.

As a member of Parliament for a fishery riding, I'm particularly interested in your concerns about fish and share those concerns, as do all members of the committee.

I've looked at the boundary dispute on land and have a very good understanding of the land ownership and proprietorship that comes with that, and the whole ownership principle. My understanding of the treaty process—it's important to look at the treaty process—is it allows room within it to negotiate overlapping land claims. It's very clear and open in that.

I especially like your comments in your paper on the fishery based on race. Finally, someone in B.C. has said that's just not so. I appreciate that, but we have an unresolved issue, in that in the treaty process—and I think most of us agree we have to continue on the treaty process—we have a finite resource. Because we have a finite resource, the fear I've heard in British Columbia is that if you continue to settle all your treaties, you will run out of fish before you can settle them.

• 1440

I know time is an issue. We're going to get a second round, so I'll give you a chance to answer that. I've got my own ideas—

Mr. Terry Glavin: This is great, because this really goes right to the heart of the problem and the difficulty. You know, if you're a white guy and you're a commercial fisherman, you hear all this stuff about aboriginal rights, and you hear about people being given the right to sell fish or something like this. You think about the implications of the right to sell fish, and if you're a fisherman all you can see is, my God, if there's an aboriginal right to sell fish, all these treaty rights to sell fish, the market is unlimited; where is there room for me, for God's sake? These anxieties are perfectly well founded. But it's an interesting thing that once commercial fishermen understand what's really going on, you see a lot of that stuff evaporate.

I speak from this degree of authority on that. I grew up on the Fraser River. I mean on the Fraser River, actually, right on it. The last ten years I lived on the Fraser River before I moved over to the island where I live now, I lived in a houseboat. All my neighbours were fishermen. I grew up with those fishermen, went to school with a lot of them. I've deck-handed. It's been very, very difficult for those guys, but there's a real learning curve that a lot of people have gone through. As a matter of fact, those fishermen now work hand in hand with aboriginal fishermen on the lower Fraser River who participate in these controversial pilot sales programs you always hear about.

I just want to give you a snapshot of the industry and the way things work now, so people really understand what we're dealing with here, if I might be able to do that.

I think it's important for people to understand that on the west coast of Canada there are only 2,600 vessels left with licences to harvest salmon. Of those vessels, fewer than 500 account for fully 50% of all the wild salmon caught on Canada's west coast. That is about a third as many guys in the fishery as when I was a kid.

I've got my own eccentric reasons for opposing buy-back programs and things like that; I don't like it when people leave the fishery.

What the Nisga'a treaty provides is a system of fleet reduction that's financed through the cost of the treaty that will make room for those people, for that expansion of the aboriginal participation in the fishery. And that's a principle that's supported by the industry. I've got a bit of difficulty with it myself, because it's expensive. After a while it gets really expensive.

So the difficulty I think a lot of people have—and I would include maybe even federal and provincial negotiators—in dealing with this problem is that the idea that the salmon resource is necessarily finite is fine, but it is not static; it's not constant. There's a tremendous amount of room for the replenishment of certain species, and there's also a tremendous amount of room for the restoration of the abundance of certain species, recognizing as well that these things often fluctuate because of naturally prevailing conditions and marine productivity and so forth.

I don't want to get all.... See what I mean? Get me going on about fish I'll never shut up.

Lastly, I would say that it's quite possible—and elsewhere on the coast you will find this—that aboriginal negotiators and non-aboriginal commercial fishermen are working out ways to accommodate an increase in the aboriginal shares of the total allowable catch of area species that is done in concert with the restoration of the abundance in those species.

The Chair: Our first questioner is Mr. Iftody, please.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much, Mr. Glavin, for your presentation. I think it's refreshing to hear your very candid and frank expressions as somebody who's from British Columbia and is familiar with these issues and as I recall has been nominated by the Governor General for your work in terms of trying to describe British Columbia to the rest of us in Canada.

I have two questions, Mr. Glavin. I wanted you to elaborate on something to help us in this committee, which goes to the antecedents of most of the discussions, and I think that's where some of the difficulty resides. By that I mean this. The British crown here representing England in the late 1700s and early 1800s found people here, went back to report to the government, to the king at the time, that there was a people living here.

• 1445

My understanding is that the Privy Council, which would have been the Supreme Court at that time in Britain, instructed the agents in Canada, throughout the 1760s up until the 1870s and onward, to sign treaties with the first nations here. It's my understanding that there was a recognition of the so-called aboriginal title or then rights to the land. So our forefathers who founded the shall we say white man's government in Canada recognized this at the time.

I should say parenthetically that this was a long time before my grandfather came to these shores a hundred years ago from Europe, as a farmer, like many of us. The people who were here 400 and 500 years ago—the British common law, sir, on which we base our laws in this country, peace, order, and good government—they recognized, did they not, that they had to make laws with the first nations people and that these were binding on the rest of us? That's my first question.

My second one, sir, deals with the question of fish. We heard from a Mr. Eidsvik, and he painted a rather gloomy, awful, scary picture for the people of British Columbia. He said he spoke for many, many fishermen. I'm not sure who his membership is, actually. He said if this Nisga'a treaty goes through, the fishing industry in B.C. is doomed—basically it's dead, it's over, we'll have to pack up and move out, and bad things will happen to good people in British Columbia.

I'd like you to elaborate as an expert on both of those areas. Could you please help us in clarifying some of this testimony provided earlier by these people?

Mr. Terry Glavin: Answering the first question would take a while, but I'll try to answer it this way.

In British Columbia, both in the policy of the crown colony of Vancouver Island and in the colony of British Columbia.... It's always really important to understand we entered Confederation as a self-governing colony. We were a society, a self-governing people.

From the very earliest times—and it's very important for people to understand this—in the colony of British Columbia, it was always recognized and understood that the aboriginal customary law was comprehensible to the English common law and that aboriginal title was in fact comprehensible to the Torrens system of law. This was always understood. It was always just a matter of purchasing the title—that's how it was seen in those days—to accommodate settlement.

I would observe that even among the settlers, it was commonplace to petition their governments to plead for the appropriate, reasonable, and honourable discharge of aboriginal title through the negotiation of treaties. It wasn't about white people versus Indians. This is a really important thing to understand about British Columbia history. In many respects British Columbia was almost a co-venture between aboriginal peoples and white peoples, but certainly a lot of Asian people who followed, and people from all over the world.

From the earliest times, aboriginal people for the most part—and I would say this is specifically true in southern British Columbia, the lower mainland, and southern Vancouver Island, where settlement first occurred—were quite welcoming of white settlement. It was generally quite peaceable.

In the 1860s you had 5,000 Cowichan people who, yes, governed themselves according to their own customary law and persisted in their own fishing and hunting practices. They were also for the most part Catholic farmers, as early as 1863, and lived alongside non-aboriginal people on the understanding and in the faith that both the aboriginal and the non-aboriginal people had: that treaties would be concluded, as they were on southern Vancouver Island.

Then, with the overwhelming settlement that followed those early days and a change in the administration, a reluctance in the British colonial office to fund the conclusion of treaties, and a whole bunch of other reasons, the issue just kind of got swept under the rug. But it was not forgotten, either by aboriginal society or by non-aboriginal society.

• 1450

You know, this isn't some faddish thing that's been invented by some sort of leftist beatnik in Victoria. I don't know why people think these things. This is old.

The Chair: Mr. Glavin, I'm sorry, but we're out of time.

Mr. Terry Glavin: So I don't get to answer the fish question then.

The Chair: Unfortunately not.

Mr. Terry Glavin: You're lucky for that.

The Chair: Maybe in another round we'll get to it.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We should be privileged to have Mr. Glavin here from Vancouver.

Mr. Terry Glavin: I'm not from Vancouver.

Mr. Richard Harris: Well, wherever. He's a writer and an academic purporting to tell us he understands the fishing situation on the west coast far more than Mr. Eidsvik, who's been involved in the fisheries business all his life.

Mr. Terry Glavin: That's rubbish. That's not true.

Mr. Richard Harris: We appreciate your being here, Mr. Glavin. As well, we appreciate your trying to describe to us the great unwashed who live in the north central part of B.C.—

The Chair: The chair will interrupt to make sure we are courteous to witnesses. I will allow you to continue your questioning now, keeping in mind that we will continue to be courteous to witnesses while I'm in this chair. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Harris: I guess we up here in Prince George have it all wrong, Mr. Glavin. We're glad you're here to straighten us out.

I want to ask you a question. In the Nisga'a treaty, around 50 areas of treaty ingredients are not finalized, and the ongoing consultation after the treaty is signed will be the process to flesh out these 50 areas.

I can't understand anyone in their right mind signing a contract with still 50 blanks left in the contract. Would you buy a car that had 50 blanks left in the contract or a house that had 50 blanks left in the mortgage? Yet the government is telling us this is a good thing.

The provincial NDP, when they pushed it through their legislature, said this is a good thing and we're signing on to it. There are 50 blanks or so in the agreement. The Liberal government, supported by the Bloc, the Tories, and the NDP, are saying this is a good agreement. There are 50 blanks still in the Nisga'a agreement.

How on earth can you rationalize, if you can, that signing onto a blank-cheque document such as the Nisga'a agreement is something we should just accept and just go away and be quiet about? Why would anyone want to sign a blank cheque like this?

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Glavin, perhaps you would appreciate a minute or two to just think about this. Would you appreciate that, or are you ready to go?

Mr. Jim Gouk: On a point of order, when have we ever done this?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Glavin.

Mr. Terry Glavin: I want to answer this question.

The Chair: Well, we are usually more courteous to our witnesses, and if I see a witness who seems upset, I'm going to deal with it and give them time to regain their composure.

Mr. Terry Glavin: I'll try to answer that question this way.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Terry Glavin: And what the heck, I'll precede it with a little bit of windbaggery of my own.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Terry Glavin: I will object to the fact that this committee has disgraced itself by obviously callously and arrogantly dismissing the legitimate views of the people of Mayne Island, where I live. There is a perfectly good agricultural hall down there on Fernhill Road that this committee has refused steadfastly to come and visit. I'm sorry. I happen to like Prince George. I would rather have just gone down to the agricultural hall to make my submission, but there we have it.

The other thing is I do not purport to come up here and tell the people of Prince George they are all wrong. In fact I have every reason to believe my general views about this thing are perfectly consistent with the vast majority of people who live in Prince George. That's the second thing.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Terry Glavin: Third, the difficulty we have with these issues is that we are told—and I mean we are told—as British Columbians, “This is a treaty based on race. What do you think of this treaty?” What you are saying to me is “This treaty is a blank cheque. What do you think of that?”

• 1455

I'm going to say that if you want to characterize it as a blank cheque, that's your business. You people have a certain agenda, and I'm not going to engage in petty political debate with you about it.

A voice: The agenda is to protect the country.

The Chair: Thank you. Next is Monsieur Bachand, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Glavin, I had promised to ask different questions during the second round. I have read your brief; one section in particular held my interest. Although you did not raise this issue in your speech, I would like you to clarify your thoughts on the actions of the media.

We have often stated our opposition to the concentration of the media. We maintain that there is a danger in having the media in the hands of an increasingly smaller number of individuals, who can then exercise greater control over all the media. Newspaper owners often tell their editors to promote the points of view which they support.

I know the positions of Conrad Black and David Black. Yet again this week, the Globe and Mail published the opinions of a close associate of our Reform colleagues on the subject of racism. I can then only wonder about the objectivity of the media. In your opinion, why do the Canadian media, including those in British Columbia, view the Nisga'a Treaty in such biased light? We have observed that the media simply ignore anyone who supports the treaty and defends it with rational arguments, and instead give voice to any one wishing to destroy it. Only the objections of the latter camp have been published in the papers.

I do not wish to unduly criticize the media handling of this issue, because reporters are our friends, but it would seem to me that there is a problem of ethics when we discuss the information published by the media on this issue. In fact, you alluded to this problem in your brief, and I would like you to elaborate on this subject.

[English]

A voice: They understand the issues.

The Chair: Mr. Glavin.

Mr. Terry Glavin: I think it has been widely observed, as you just did, that over the past 20 years in Canada we've gone from a fairly significant diversity of ownership in newspapers and radio and television news programs to the point where we have one corporation that has something like 70% of the circulation of newspapers in English Canada.

When I began my work as a reporter, I worked for the last independent daily in western Canada, a very old newspaper, called The Columbian. Our first wire story was Lincoln's assassination. It's gone.

There is very much a narrowing of the British Columbian mind, I believe, that has been a consequence of this. These are decisions that are largely made in Toronto.

In British Columbia we have David Black, who owns much of the rural newspaper circulation, and he has instructed his editors that they should not write any editorials that might be construed as being favourable to the Nisga'a treaty. That's a fact. I'm not expressing an opinion. We have Western International Communications Ltd., which owns BCTV and the radio stations, including CKNW. This is true. These are not new allegations. Just last week the Vancouver Sun hired somebody from the Fraser Institute to write editorials. Newspaper owners are perfectly entitled to do this kind of thing. That's the way things work.

That's all very well and good, but I think it's preposterous, disingenuous, and dishonest simply to refuse to recognize and acknowledge that this is happening and that it has some great degree of significance in the way the terms of the debate are framed.

• 1500

In my brief to you I just went through the newspapers of the last week and a half and asked, what are people saying about these kinds of things? An editorial in the National Post said it would be interesting to see how British Columbians would vote in a referendum on a treaty that is based on race.

A voice: Where is the referendum?

Mr. Terry Glavin: I'll say to you a couple of things about that. I would vote against a treaty that was based on race, no question, hands down, no damn way. I'd vote against a treaty like that.

But I also have to wonder why it is that native interests in land and resources are being singled out for this sort of treatment. Why is it that I don't have an opportunity to vote on whether or not Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel, Northwood, or any of these other companies...? What about their tree farm licences? They never come up for a referendum. What about all the mining claims in British Columbia? Nobody puts these things to a vote. What about grazing leases? Nobody puts these things to a referendum.

I don't mean to harp on this, but it's about fish, and I won't shut up about it. Think about it for a minute. There are four million British Columbians, 2,600 boats, and 90% of the total allowable catch of wild salmon on this coast. I didn't get to vote on that. So why are we now saying all this business about native interests? If we want to have this conversation about a referendum, let's really have a conversation about a referendum.

A voice: Give it to the Gitxsan.

Mr. Terry Glavin: The last thing I'd like to do, and I'm going to do this really quickly, is give you an example.

It's really politically incorrect to use the R-word these days. Have you noticed that? You're not allowed to say racism. Everybody says “Oh, you can't say racism”. I'm going to read an example from the media. This appeared in a column in the National Post, and it talks about native people:

They can ignore hunting, fishing and logging laws. They avoid income and sales taxes. They will be released on a sort of quasi-parole for crimes for which a white would be sentenced to prison. They are admitted to professional schools with dramatically lower grades and test scores than those expected from the majority population. They can assert claims to their neighbours' property without proof or records. They receive handsome cash stipends from the federal government and many of them have been granted huge and valuable stretches of Crown land to exploit as their own. Employment laws oblige banks, airlines and public agencies to hire them and make it difficult and dangerous to fire them. They have been permitted to tear up leases and contracts and rewrite them in their own favour. The authorities look the other way as they shake down oil and mining companies for payoffs, invade parks and blockade highways.

In one paragraph native people are described as liars, cheats, tax rip-offs, bullies, thieves, extortionists, shakedown artists, and anarchists.

Now, I'm not going to put myself in the shoes of say a 15-year-old kid from one of the reserves around here who wants to make his way in the world and to go out and seek his fortune but who picks up the newspaper and reads this kind of thing on a daily basis. I'm not going to pretend to understand what kind of an impact this kind of a thing has on a daily basis.

The Chair: Mr. Glavin, please—

Mr. Terry Glavin: I will conclude by saying that if I were to look to my own customs, traditions, and practices, having been raised in an Irish Catholic family, and wonder what would be the consequence of this kind of journalism being used on a daily basis to characterize Irish Catholics, I can only wonder what kind of an end would result.

The Chair: Mr. Glavin, I have another questioner.

Actually, Mr. Finlay, I should have gone to you before Mr. Bachand. Please go ahead now.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

With every respect to all who are here, Mr. Glavin, I'll take a little literary licence. When you finished your presentation, I said, as Bassanio did in the trial of Shylock, “A Daniel, sir, a Daniel come to judgment”. For those of you who understand a little Shakespeare, I hope you appreciate that.

I also want to apologize for my colleague Mr. Harris. He is not a regular member of this committee. He has probably misrepresented more of this agreement and more of what we've learned in the last three days than I care to add up.

A voice: We can all agree.

Mr. John Finlay: He mentioned the alleged lack of consultation. I've heard that for three years, you can imagine, an alleged lack of consultation—

Mr. Richard Harris: I have a point of order.

• 1505

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chairman, I can't sit quietly while Mr. Finlay slanders my questioning, slanders my character with his personal opinion. He may hold the opinion, but he doesn't have to state publicly that I have misrepresented. It's a matter of opinion. I demand that he withdraw that and apologize.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Finlay, will you please confine yourself to talking about the issues at hand and only things that you know to be true?

Perhaps we can try to calm the waters a little bit here all around this table, because I do not think in reality any of this helps this discussion. I know we have extremely concerned people here, and I would like to move forward with the debate.

I know there have been many things said, and I think we can try on all sides, Mr. Harris, because I was very concerned with the way our witness from Prince George was treated this morning. I wish all our witnesses, no matter where they are from in this country, to be treated with equal respect.

Mr. Finlay, please continue with your question. You are in order to continue.

Mr. John Finlay: Then I will move directly to my second question.

I wonder whether the witness would comment on the part of the treaty that establishes a fisheries trust in the Nisga'a fishing areas of the Nass River. It seems to me that is a rather original and certainly effective means, and it goes along hand in glove with the allocations of fish the Nisga'a have been granted, which increase, not in percentage but by quantity, if they have ameliorated the stocks and gotten a better total allowable catch. It seems to me the federal government has put a considerable sum of money into that, and the Nisga'a put $3 million of their own money into it. It might well serve to be a model for the coast in future.

Mr. Terry Glavin: There are aspects of the Nisga'a treaty, the fisheries component, that are necessarily unique to the conditions that prevail in the Nass. But there are also aspects of it that I think can guide people throughout the coast. I would say the Lisims, the fisheries trust, is one of those aspects.

One of the things people forget that the Nisga'a are doing in their fisheries—and I don't know if you've heard much about this—is they've really pioneered a return to more selective and live-capture fisheries. I can't stress the importance of this particular trend. It has been long recognized by conservation biologists, fisheries economists, and fisheries management analysts that the concentration of fishing efforts in mixed stock areas has to come to an end. It is now federal policy, as of last year, that the selective fisheries must be the cornerstone of salmon management on Canada's west coast.

There are aspects of the fisheries trust, the idea of harvesting only the known abundance of those particular species of salmon that can sustain the culling of harvestable surpluses and keeping that separate and apart from other species that you want to rebuild, so you want to get them through all that fishing gear. It's really quite elaborate and very encouraging.

There are people on the west coast of Vancouver Island who have also looked at that and said they want to do the same kind of thing. What's unique about the west coast of Vancouver Island, which is the Nuu-chah-nulth area, is that there are a lot of non-native commercial fishermen there as well. So the non-native commercial fishermen working with the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal fishermen have actually adopted a model that is significantly inspired by the Nisga'a fisheries component that would allow native and non-native fishermen to participate in a fisheries management regime within the Nuu-chah-nulth area as a function of the Nuu-chah-nulth treaty.

I think that kind of example is a laudable one to be sending. I'm in favour of it, very much so.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

• 1510

The Chair: You have extra time if you want it.

Mr. John Finlay: No, I don't think I have anything to add. I am very happy with the answer.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Terry Glavin: May I make one quick point that people should be aware of? It's related to that last question.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Terry Glavin: People really should remember that at the end of the day, in the Nisga'a fisheries, the salmon component, on average, we're talking about about 26% of the Canadian catch. We should also remember that the very same companies that have provided people like the Fishery Survival Coalition and Mr. Griezic with the illusion that they represent a lot of commercial fishermen on the coast are precisely those companies that have invested very heavily in the Alaskan fisheries and that 50% of all the salmon that return to the Nass River are caught in Alaska.

The Chair: Ms. Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I want your opinion on whether you think the democratic process, as it stands, is adequate for the ratification at all the three levels of government and what your comments are on hearing that the treaty will create communist ghettos.

Mr. Terry Glavin: Yes, that's a really good one.

You see, one of the things about the stridency of this debate is at least it's amusing from time to time. I was interested to know that the real purpose of the Nisga'a treaty is to reintroduce communism to the world by the negotiation of treaties with people in North America. That's all very hilarious. I don't know. What can I say?

If I can answer it this way, and I hope this is answering your question, I think there is actually a heck of a lot to be learned from the process that the Nisga'a treaty has produced, remembering, as I think all the committee members are aware, that it's sort of its own thing and that the B.C. treaty process is different in the way it evolves and proceeds through the various stages of treaty-making. It's different from the Nisga'a treaty. There's a lot more consultation involved.

I would hope that the biggest lesson people might learn from this is that the smartest thing to do—and I confess that I'm very conservative about these issues—the wisest thing for government, people who are elected to our legislatures, is what they were elected to do, and that is to make decisions, stand by them or fall by them, and get on with the job.

In the case of the Nisga'a treaty, as in the case of all other treaties in the province, I think the more treaties you negotiate the more days there will be when British Columbians wake up and see that the flags are indeed still flying on all our government buildings and that there are not great spaceships hovering around on top of all the cities in British Columbia and that in fact things sort of carry on and we sort of muddle through, which is what Canadians do best.

Get on with the damn job. I'm sorry for my language. Stop being ninnies about it. Stop wetting your trousers about consultation, and do what you were elected to do.

The Chair: The last questioner for this witness is Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

In your section “Equality Before the Law”, you have a sentence there that says “It is not about race”. One of the things I will try to do is maybe take it out of race.

Would using an example of a marriage be something similar, where a whole community might know that you have a dominant husband and a very quiet wife, and everyone would say that the problems only started when the wife decided she wanted to have her equal say in where the children are going to go to school? So when the woman gets assertive and the husband decides, well, things are not good in our home any more because my wife is getting really demanding, is that a point of view I could use for this, where everything is fine as long as the wife does everything that comes out of the husband's mouth?

Can I use that scenario to explain the situation—that most people tend to think it was all right until the other people started to come out and say they want to have a say in where the children go to school?

I think it's very difficult when everyone looks at it as only a race issue and not at the other issues that are really at stake, as maybe other Canadians trying to have a say about their future and their life.

• 1515

Mr. Terry Glavin: I think there is a lot to be said for certain aspects of that analogy. The thing that is a bit disturbing—and you'll see this on the left and you'll see in on the right—is that if aboriginal communities are in a subservient position and are kept on the reserve and are confined to welfare, that becomes a bit of a subjective complaint when they exercise their rights to the lands and resources around them. As an alternative to welfare dependency, they also find themselves in the bad graces of certain people.

Then there is this idea that isn't is sad how we have treated the Indians, and aren't they all so spiritual, and shouldn't we all get all gooey about it. This is almost as useless, I think. It sort of denies the humanity of aboriginal people. I think a lot of people want someone to feel sorry for, and when aboriginal people say they're going to deal with you on an equal basis, all kinds of people really don't know how to deal with this. I think that's correct.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mrs. Karetak-Lindell, do you have any other questions for this witness, or is that your final question? Thank you.

Mr. Glavin, I want to thank you very, very much.

Oh, Mr. Keddy, yes, you wanted to say one thing. We're cutting off at 3:15. Did you want one minute? It's the end of the round here. Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll try to use one minute and give the gentleman time to answer. I want to go back to fish.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, I'm sorry then. It's 3:15 and we have to go to the next witness if that's the situation.

Mr. Glavin, I do want to thank you for coming and testifying today. I know this has been a difficult round of questioning, but we do, please be assured, appreciate all of our witnesses coming before us. And I think Canadians appreciate it too. Maybe today was a little more difficult than normal days for you, but in the broad perspective, we value your contribution. You should know that as you leave here today.

Mr. Terry Glavin: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Committee members, I'm going to take a five-minute recess. Our plane leaves sharply at 5:30. We're going to leave here right after the 4:30 adjournment. Please make sure your luggage is out there so it can be loaded onto the plane. We will suspend for five minutes and return with our next witness. Thank you.

• 1518

• 1530

The Chair: The meeting is back in session. We will go to 4:30.

Our final witness of the day is Mr. Foster Griezic, from the LAN network, the aboriginal support network. Mr. Griezic, welcome on behalf of the committee. You are free to commence your presentation and then we will go through at least one round of questioning, if not more. Thank you very much.

Mr. Foster J.K. Griezic (Delegated Spokesperson for Mavis Gillies, LAN (Aboriginal Support Network)): Thank you, Madam Chairman, and the name is pronounced “Greezik”.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Foster Griezic: It gives me great pleasure, Madam Chairman and members of the committee and the pundits present, to hear and listen to—and I stress the “listen to”, I hope—the presentations of all the presenters. I think it's important that it is listened to and absorbed, thought through, the way Canadians can do it.

I do represent the Aboriginal Neighbours, which is a group out of Vancouver Island and Vancouver, the lower mainland, with the Anglican diocese of British Columbia. I'm here to present a brief on their behalf specifically.

The brief is too long of course to present to you in the time that's allotted to provide for questions. Basically what I've done is put together just a précis of it. I would be delighted to hear and have questions posed to me. What basically the brief talks to is Bill C-9, which is an act to give effect to the NFA, the Nisga'a Final Agreement.

I think it's quite clear, and I've argued this repeatedly, that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation in Canadian history, for a number of reasons. It contains both positive and negative aspects. There are a number of problems with how the NFA was reached. It is being suggested that if changes are made they should be made to give more to the first nations.

It sets a number of very ominous and dangerous precedents in first nation government relations because of the negotiation process, which I would suggest is flawed. I'm not the only one who has suggested that, but I think I would suggest it from a different perspective from what has been presented before.

• 1535

It's also—and this point has been made repeatedly but in a different sense—a fine example of dividing and ruling, as it pits first nations against first nations, because it didn't take into account the boundary differences and permit first nations to actually resolve that issue, as could have been done.

What the NFA does is provide some, but not enough, recognition of the first nations historically and the historical reality of those people being here. Unfortunately, as we deal with the first nations we seem to be trapped in a time warp. We're trapped in the colonial mentality of the sixteenth century, where our first nations were considered and spoken of as a people of terra nullius. The term terra nullius is Latin and simply refers to an empty space. The contradiction was in that reference to empty space when they talked about real people, but the people who were there were in an empty space. How can it be empty and yet have people?

It appears we haven't lost that mentality sufficiently, and that may be because there are a number of problems in accepting the first nations as equals, which they are. They had a government, had a culture, had a society, had a democracy, although not the same as ours, that functioned and functioned not badly for 7,000 years. Then white settlers arrived and they had to cope with that and they certainly accommodated in many ways. I think it's a well-known fact that without them, those white settlers, the explorers, could not have survived. That's a reality. They are competent people. They think; they're intelligent. They know; they've lived it. I think we should accept that and recognize it.

They can resolve differences with our help, but also without it. We have to understand, I suggest, the old saying that if you give responsibility to people, people will act responsibly. I think it's clear that in the negotiating process some of that colonialist mentality still obtained. On the other hand, with the signing of this agreement it's quite clear that even a flawed process can produce results—not necessarily results everybody is going to be happy with, but it does produce results.

With those results, it should be emphasized that this specific agreement should not be considered to be a template for future agreements. Each first nation group has specific problems; they are different societies. Those have to be resolved within the context of what they are as a people. We have to accept that, and that's a first starting point. We have to come to grips with that aspect.

It's clear that with the first nations and this disagreement specifically, we should be giving thanks—as one of the members of the executive stated—to the Nisga'a for the perseverance and patience they have shown for over a hundred years. For a hundred years they have been trying to get this resolved. There's no question that the land issue, as we deal with that issue specifically, has to fall back on the question of what these people are, what they possess, and how we are going to arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion as we resolve the differences that exist between them, and between us.

• 1540

It's clear, I'd like to suggest, as they push for this successful resolution of the land issue, that back in 1887 one of the Nisga'a elders simply asked very poignantly, “Who gave the land to the Queen?” Another Nisga'a chief said to government representatives, “Who is this government that will give land back to us when the land is already ours?” We have to understand that situation.

Now they've extinguished their land title, and there's that question of certainty. That's a scary term. Because it means with everybody in this room, when they sell their house or buy their house, they've got it forever and no one else is going to change it. Why are we imposing the kind of situation on these people that you wouldn't apply to yourself in your own existence? That's never been done before in B.C.—extinguishing land title. That's an important precedent and a serious one.

They've also given up their tax-free status, which over the years is going to be phased out from the Indian Act, but they're doing it at a time when the white courts are saying—in New Brunswick, in the recent Shilling case—that these people do have the right under law, white law, to have tax exemption.

You can ask questions, Mr. Harris, in just a minute. Can I get through, please?

At the same time, they are going to be retaining their social and cultural fabric and other antecedents, or trying to re-establish them. I've worked with a number of natives who are trying to bring back their languages, which were simply wiped from them. I know something about that because I come from an ethnic background, even though I've lived here. In order to get to where I am as a worker, I've had to take on another language that wasn't my

[Translation]

mother tongue. I would like to apologize to all those who speak French for not being able to give my presentation in their language. However, I will be able to answer their questions in French.

[English]

One of the real problems we have is that as they are trying to maintain this, they're surrounded by assimilation and all it means to their culture and survival.

• 1545

Now, contrary to the misconstructed and misrepresented criticism of the Nisga'a and first nation antagonists who are demanding more concessions, it's clear from this agreement that these people still remain under the NFA, under Bill C-9, which will give effect to it, under federal and provincial laws and jurisdiction. They have to live in our society. That's in there. If you like, I have the various documents that demonstrate that. It's in those documents of the NFA. It will stay that way even though they're moving out from that colonialist and, yes, racist—if I can use that term—Indian Act. And I think people have admitted that it is a racist act, so I'm not saying anything out of school.

The Nisga'a didn't get an excellent deal. In exchange for what they've given up, they didn't get enough money for what they ceded. They've been given promises, economic benefits in land use, extraction, timber, fishing, minerals, a retention of their social and cultural fabric, the type of municipal government under which, significantly, non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land pay no taxes and they participate—

Mr. Richard Harris: I don't know about that.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Excuse me, Mr. Harris, I know you don't like what I'm saying, but unless you can challenge that with documentation, that's in the document. Now, if I can just continue and finish, it will only be a couple of minutes more.

They also have an input to the governing practice. They have a land area that provides free access—free access!—to their territory. We know what has happened to these people to protect their culture, their burial grounds. The white community would do the same; they wouldn't let someone bulldoze theirs. We have a situation in which we may be promoting and creating additional problems by giving that free access.

They have been given a return of their cultural heritage, their artifacts. For these people who looked after them for thousands of years, in a patronizing fashion, we told them to go learn how to look after them and find a place to keep them, and then we would give the artifacts back to them. That's going to happen, fortunately, and they'll do it, because they had been able to do it before the white settlers took these things. There are some problems with the Smithsonian Institute and that sort of thing, but that's normal, natural. But they are going to be getting these back, and there's going to be a sustained attempt to get these back.

The Nisga'a become government tax collectors under the NFA, through their municipal system and quasi-municipal system. It should be pointed out and repeated that this is done through an unfair and biased treaty process, whereas inequality prevailed before. It's always been two levels of government against one. I ask the crowd, the members of the committee, how would you feel about going into a bargaining process to negotiate while knowing that you are at a disadvantage to start with? While in the negotiation process, the land was being exploited by third-party individuals. And guess what? The Nisga'a were excluded from doing so—on their own land. A slight inequality.

• 1550

At the same time, we have a situation in which the exploiters, the mining industry.... MacMillan Bloedel is getting $83.7 million from the B.C. government for not exploiting native territory. What are the natives getting? And a Price Waterhouse 1996 report stated that between $2 billion and $4 billion worth of wealth has been extracted from first nations territory in B.C. What are we talking about here now?

Anyway, I was told I have to get going so that we can get to some questions. I think there has to be change. There's no question of it. The courts have to recognize the first nations' rights to their land, to extract, and they have done that, fortunately.

I've made a number of recommendations that are appended to the brief, and they have to do with improving the NFA. They have to do with the negotiating process. They have to do with educating Canadians about their history. That history is also first nations history and culture, to provide an understanding so that as we talk, as we discuss, we do it on a much fairer and more level playing field.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Griezic.

I will commence with Mr. Scott, for five minutes.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Yes, thank you.

Mr. Griezic, for most of the day I have been ceding to my colleagues from Prince George, but I can't help but challenge some of the things you've said.

I have to start with the observation that if the people of Prince George weren't sufficiently insulted by the way this committee has conducted itself, they must be insulted by now by the kinds of things that have been said here this afternoon. You said, and I quote, “provincial laws apply”, and you challenged us to point it out if there was anything in the treaty that was to the contrary. Well, I would like to point out to you that there are seventeen areas in the treaty dealing with language, culture, health care, education, adoption, marriage, land, and citizenship, to name a few, where it says that in the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a Nisga'a law and a federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law will prevail to the extent of that inconsistency or conflict.

Now, I suggest to you, sir, that this is in direct contradiction to what you testified in front of this committee not ten minutes ago. And I further suggest to you, sir, that the Nisga'a government could use those powers of legislation under a variety of areas in the treaty. Take citizenship, for example. As critic for Indian affairs and northern development for the Reform Party, I can tell you—and I can provide the documentation—that in many bands across Canada, when individual band members complain about the lack of democratic and fiscal accountability on their reserves, one of the first moves the band councils make is to disenfranchise those band members by telling them they have to get off the reserve. Now, here you have a patent example of a legislative authority, a legislative power. I'm not suggesting the Nisga'a are going to use it, but I'm suggesting that it is available to them to disenfranchise anybody who disagrees with the powers of government in that community.

I would like you to respond to that, because I think it's a very serious issue. I don't think it has been discussed nearly enough here in British Columbia, and it flies in the face of what you testified to this committee not ten minutes ago.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Griezic, go ahead and answer, please.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Well, Mr. Scott, I would suggest that it may be possible that we're reading different documents of the NFA. It may be a different interpretation. You're talking about hypotheses, but I'm talking about the actuality.

Mr. Mike Scott: Those are direct quotes out of the book.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Mr. Scott, I listened to you, so please let me respond as best I can. If I haven't, then please pose another question.

• 1555

As I say, you're talking hypotheses. I'm well aware of what the dangers are. I also know that the federal government—as you well know—will create different bands in order to foster specific divisions in a community and get something finalized. If that's the case—and it is the case—we also know through Linda Lovelace...or Sandra Lovelace, I'm sorry—

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: I think you got the right one the first time.

The Chair: I think we need some comic relief around here.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Well, a little humour goes a long way, and, boy, we need that.

When Sandra Lovelace marched on with the women in 1979, that resulted in the change to the recognition of first nations. Let's face it. You and I both know there are senators who are from first nations and are still challenging that sort of thing.

Listen, I'm not trying to state that it's a perfect world out there. I'm simply saying this, working within the confines of what the document says. I'm not talking about what might happen, because political scientists do that. Historians only do that with considerable difficulty.

I would be prepared to concede that there may be some areas in which certain laws—and it states them specifically in there—can be resolved between the two, the provincial and federal governments. But on the ones that are critical and crucial to their cultural existence—fishing, timber, mineral extraction, and so on—I would hope they would have free rein. They don't at this point, and that's stated specifically in that document.

You talk about what might happen in marriage or this sort of thing. Well, if they follow our process in the white system, there are all sorts of flaws there as well, aren't there? Again, I don't think we should try to establish some sort of rubric that we ourselves don't abide by in our own society. That's what I would suggest you're trying to do by saying that this might happen, that the floods may come and Prince George may no longer be here because of those flooded banks. We can go on and on, but it has to be relevant to what that situation in fact is.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: First, I would like to tell Mr. Griezic that he actually speaks French very well. I will then ask him where he learned it.

Mr. Foster Griezic: I taught at the University of Laval as a visiting professor.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I don't have many questions for you regarding the treaty. I understand that you are a faithful supporter of the treaty. Your review of the various sections demonstrates that you have read it with care and that you support it wholeheartedly.

I also wanted to tell you that I support the historical review you performed. One only has to read the Royal Commission Report on Native Peoples to realize that we have subjected the First Nations to horrendous indignities.

Your reaction here today is one of an informed individual, who has read about the issue and is well aware of the persecution of the First Nations. We go to great lengths today to try and redress a part of our history, although we will not succeed in rectifying all the wrongs in view of their number. However, we are at least making an effort to rectify some of them.

Do you consider this agreement to be a partnership between two peoples: the Nisga'a people and the Canadian people? That is my opinion, and I would like to hear your point of view.

• 1600

Do you feel that this report rectifies, at least partially, the wrongs we have caused the Nisga'a? Can this treaty pave the way for another series of similar, albeit somewhat different, treaties? I concur with your view that the various nations adopt a different approach with the other party, that is the Canadian people, and that their claims may be different, but it would seem to me that the gains made by the Nisga'a in securing the support of two parliaments, that of Ottawa and of British Columbia, are a clear signal that it is now possible to reach partnership agreements between two peoples. Could you give us your opinion on this issue?

[English]

Mr. Foster Griezic: I think it can happen. It necessitates an approach that is going to have to change the mentality of the Canadian society writ large. By that I mean that as we look at the first nations we have to understand that when they signed the treaties.... And it didn't matter whether it was the Douglas treaties, which were then signed with X's, and then modified.... We don't know who modified them, but it clearly was not first nations because first nations didn't write English.

A voice: How do you know they were first nations? Who did they conquer to get the land?

Mr. Foster Griezic: At any rate, as these people were functioning, we have to accept and realize that they did have a society. We have to even consider, I would think, certain aspects of how to deal with them. Wouldn't it be magnificent if we could walk into a negotiating table with the first nation—it doesn't matter which first nation it is—and sit down and negotiate with them in their language?

A voice: Like French.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Yes, like French, that awful language—if you hear it, it burns your ears—my goodness.

Similarly, we have to say to those first nations, let's work it out on a one-to-one basis. We can do that by doing what, Mr. Bachand? I think it can be done as an example. If you still have two levels of government in the negotiating process, then you have the first nation there—and it doesn't matter which one it is—negotiating with those two levels of government and then permit a fourth party to come in, a fourth party acceptable to whichever that first nation is. And clearly it's their choice, because it's someone who has to support and work with them, or you do that silly thing that Sandfield Macdonald talked about in the 1850s—the double majority. By that, you simply mean that because there are two of you guys and there's only one of us, we are double-weighted. It's not a novel concept, but it does talk about parity and equality.

So it can I think be done, and I would hope it would be done. And I would hope that also as we do this, don't put parameters and say we will only cede to you—

The Chair: Mr. Griezic, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off. Thanks very much.

Mr. Keddy, please.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair. It's easy to get into the debate on this issue and subject between the parties.

A number of statements have been made here today that really have little or no bearing upon the treaty. In your discussion you stated a number of things, and the basis of it was that you thought the treaty wasn't generous enough.

• 1605

I have a couple of issues I'd like to run down, because there are a number reasons why, as a member of Parliament, I like this treaty, and I'd like to get your opinion—I don't want to use the word “radicalism”—your point of view here. Certainly the division of the fishery, the fact that we protected the commercial fishery—not we, the government—in these negotiations has been ongoing for a long time. There is the issue that the Constitution of Canada applies, the issue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies, and the way we protected business interests. I think we may disagree some on this, but I think we do have a necessity to protect business interests in the short term.

There is a gradual withdrawal of logging rights. The Nisga'a will certainly have a logging operation, but those logs will go to existing vested interests in the business now. They won't build their own pulp mills, sawmills, whatever, for a ten-year period.

I think the treaty, for me, is a reflection of reality, of economic and historic reality. It reflects the fact that we all share this land together, that you can't give everything back, that one group or the other is not going to go away, that we have to come up with some type of a negotiated settlement on how we share a resource.

I realize there are some difficulties with the treaty. There are some loose ends with the treaty. Most, or all of them, from my information, are in the treaty itself. When you read it, some of the language is difficult. For some of it you have to do a fair amount of research to get to it all. But at the same time, I think it's progressive and not regressive. But I sense that in some areas you're not satisfied with it.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Yes, that's very true, I'm not, and it's simply because as we talk about the economic system what we're really talking about as it is functioning at this point, in relation specifically to the first nations, is a bastardization of Adam Smith. Adam Smith wouldn't recognize the kind of economic marketing system that the neo-conservative elements and theologues are pushing at this point. That's one point.

I would agree with you completely that we have to work in the now, but as we work in the now, as soon as you remember anything you're working in the past. As we recall how we have treated these people—and again it's not a question of pitting them or anything else—the reality is we did a host of things that were really quite deplorable. There was even the concept of giving out blankets with diseases and this sort of thing, which the British, and it's documented, did and thought of doing, to get rid of the first nations. We can look at the American system—

A voice: Have you got it in your letter?

The Chair: Order, please. We will extend courtesy to our witnesses. Thank you very much. I'm sure you didn't mean that to interrupt.

Mr. Foster Griezic: You can't deny the holocaust of what happened to the first nations. That is documented as well. It's there; it's a reality. What we have to do is come to some—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Do I have time left?

The Chair: Yes, you have about 40 seconds left.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Quickly, for those of us who are supporting the treaty process and quite frankly not supporting some type of a wrecking-ball approach to public policy debate in this country whereby you can tear everything down to its basic common denominator, which we can't do, the treaty process, based on negotiation, I think is the way for the future of this country and to settle the record of the past.

• 1610

Mr. Foster Griezic: I would agree. As I said, though, we would like to see some modifications to that negotiation process to make it a situation whereby we are talking to these people as equals. As you're talking and as you're dealing with individuals in the economic situation in your own existence, you work as equals, and that's all we're suggesting: that this process be followed.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Bonin, please.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

Thank you very much for an excellent presentation.

Back home we teach our children to be more polite, the way I am trying to do with everyone else here.

Your role in all of this is to try to assure social justice, as I understand it, and some fairness. Usually when people need some help to assure social justice, they are minorities.

There are close to 50 tables of negotiations in British Columbia. There are people who are advocating a referendum to resolve all these problems.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Order. Excuse me. I will give more time to allow for the interruptions, because this is disruptive and—

A voice: Ignorant.

The Chair: I don't have to tell my children in my own home the same thing so many times; I just don't understand it. Maybe we'll learn.

Go ahead.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Many people are advocating referendums. As a person seeking social justice and fairness, when we speak of inherent rights of minorities, how do you feel that those inherent rights can be protected by a referendum by the majority?

Mr. Foster Griezic: Well, Mr. Bonin, number one, I don't think a referendum has to be held, because as you have—

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Sorry. We'll wait a second. Maybe people will quiet down. We'll give you a minute and then we'll try to start again. I will allow extra time, because when witnesses get upset they cannot focus in the same manner as they can if they are uninterrupted. I will add time. Go ahead.

Mr. Foster Griezic: I don't believe this issue needs a referendum. One of the problems that you have in a situation where a referendum exists.... And for the proponents of a referendum, I would like to suggest that if the people really want to have a referendum, let the first nations structure that referendum. I'm thinking that would be acceptable to the people who are proposing a referendum. But if you get into the referendum psychosis and that whole mentality, you open up a whole can of worms—

A voice: You want democracy to take place, don't you?

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Whether these people—if I can just have a short interjection—realize it or not, the kind of democracy that we function under is dysfunctional. Now, I don't know what they're talking about as they keep saying democracy, because democracy has different meanings for different people in different situations.

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Foster Griezic: So I think we have to keep that in mind when we talk about democracy, when we talk about a referendum, when we talk about the issue that is to be discussed in a referendum.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Suspend for two minutes, please.

• 1614

• 1616

The Chair: We'll try again. Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Griezic.

Mr. Foster Griezic: Thank you.

You can try to protect the rights of a minority in a referendum. It becomes very difficult to do, simply because the majoritarian principle really is reluctant to consider the minority interest. It's one of the reasons I would shy away from a referendum. I don't think it's necessary.

There is another element that hasn't been mentioned. You didn't allude to it, but I'd like to point it out. As people know from Quebec's referendum, a referendum pits brother against brother, family against family, region against region, and so on.

Voices: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Foster Griezic: That's the historical reality. Whether people want to accept that or not is another question, but that's the reality of the way it has worked historically.

If you want to tear at the fabric of B.C., which is a fascinating fabric, it really is—it has so much that is appealing and attractive to it.... To keep cutting away at it, to use an anti-tank gun when you don't even need a fly swatter, doesn't make sense. I just don't think it is useful in trying to resolve this issue.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

That finishes our questioning. We don't have time for a second round with this witness.

I do want to thank you, Mr. Griezic, for your presentation today. I think you represent a perspective that is different from what we heard earlier today. I want to thank you for coming to the committee.

I want to thank those people in our audience for attending today.

Just before I let you go, I want to make a couple of housekeeping announcements. Tomorrow's meeting will commence in Victoria at 9:15 in the morning. For the afternoon, I just want to alert you to a change in the agenda time for the start of the meeting. It starts at 1 o'clock, as opposed to 1:15. We'll see you then.

The meeting is adjourned.