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]

Thursday, November 25, 1999

• 0945

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Good morning. It's meeting number 18. The order of the day is a continuation of Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement.

I'd like to welcome our two witnesses this morning. With us we have Ms. Marilyn Buffalo, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. You'll notice that representative Joan C. Phillip has been replaced by Barbara Clifton, who is chief of the Gitxsan Nation and a representative of the B.C. Native Women's Society.

We welcome you here from British Columbia.

We have another witness coming at eleven o'clock, so we will proceed by way of opening statements. First of all, I will invite Marilyn Buffalo to go ahead for approximately ten minutes, then Chief Barbara Clifton, for approximately ten minutes also. Then we will have rounds of questioning from the members. In this committee, we use five-minute rounds. The five minutes have been consistent, including the question and the answer. That gets as many members as possible to pose questions.

Thank you very much, both of you, for attending.

Please commence, Ms. Buffalo, as soon as you are ready.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo (President, Native Women's Association of Canada): Thank you.

Firstly I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to address this very important committee.

As an aboriginal person and a national leader, I first want to recognize our creator. I'm happy to say that the creator is smiling on us with Indian summer. I hope you enjoy it.

Secondly, I wish to express my condolences for the recent passing of Gitanyow Hereditary Chief Lloyd Milton, who died in a car accident about three weeks ago. I state this for the record because had Chief Lloyd Milton been alive he would have been the one to present. It was his voice that was missing when you went to Smithers Gitanyow. The loss of his dedicated leadership is a loss for all aboriginal people on Turtle Island.

I want to recognize our grandparents, who have fought and dedicated their lives to ensure that we, the grandchildren, enjoy our rights today. Our elders and our grandparents have taught us that these rights exist, and they ensured that they would go on forever, as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow.

At a recent meeting with an Indian Affairs bureaucrat, I was asked why the Native Women's Association of Canada would be concerning itself about the Nisga'a agreement and why I would be asking questions about the Nisga'a Final Agreement. My immediate reply was, well, there are native women in that territory and therefore it is my right to ask questions. But the real reason is that this first nation is affected by this legislation because these are traditionally matrilineal societies. The Nisga'a, the Gitxsan, and the Gitanyow are matrilineal societies.

For those of you who don't know, all of the aboriginal first nations across this country are traditionally matrilineal. British Columbia is one of the places where these societies are most prominent. If there's going to be a major shift in law-making, naturally it will be the mothers and the grandmothers that will be most affected by this change.

• 0950

As aboriginal people, we are just at the point where the Supreme Court of Canada is finally recognizing our historic rights. It was just beginning to look promising. From the landmark Delgamuukw case to the Marshall case, the Mitchell case, and forestry and logging rights cases, just to name a few, all aspects of our inherent rights are being discussed on national television and newspapers.

In the recent Delgamuukw case, the Supreme Court states: “Title lies in the ancient laws of the people and the occupation of traditional territories.” Oral history and traditional understanding, which have been handed down from generation to generation, are recognized in the Delgamuukw case.

Now this treaty is in danger of no longer being valid. Now this treaty is going to have a detrimental impact on the Delgamuukw case.

Also, as the Supreme Court recognized for the first time the existence of matrilineal societies in this country, the Supreme Court also recognized that our historic rights are worth something. Just when these rights are starting to be recognized in the courts, the Canadian government wants the Nisga'a to modify them and release them under chapters 26 and 27. In the Nisga'a Final Agreement, ancient knowledge and traditional understanding are gone and no longer recognized. They are worthless, and they can't go back to the traditions of the people.

This Nisga'a Final Agreement is a fine example of how Canada's current extinguishment policies plan to overtake our historic rights and abolish aboriginal title to traditional territory.

Interestingly enough, Delgamuukw traditional land is included in this Nisga'a Final Agreement. Here is what I heard them say last week when I attended these hearings in Smithers:

This Nisga'a Final Agreement is an act to undermine aboriginal title of the Gitanyow and the Gitxsan traditional territory.

In April 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Commission stated that the situation of aboriginal peoples was the most pressing problem facing Canada. They were strongly critical of the way Canada requires aboriginal people to extinguish their rights in order to get anywhere in self-government negotiations.

The international community is fully aware of what is going on in this country. They are highly critical of the process that's being implemented currently. It's as if the Canadian government said to the residents of the city of Ottawa that they could give up their title to their property and their rights for eternity, the government would give them $490 million, and then they could take care of their people forever on that budget.

Other first nations chiefs and elders from the number treaty areas are deeply troubled by this agreement because of the precedents it may set for them in future negotiations where their ancient laws and aboriginal title to lands are being discussed. These concerned leaders are afraid that the Nisga'a Final Agreement may be a template master plan of how Canada's current extinguishment policies are the plan to overtake and abolish our historic rights as first nations in this country.

This Nisga'a agreement process may have gone too far for us to reverse, but I know that the elders, the hereditary chiefs, have never let us down before. They will not do so in the future.

• 0955

I want to comment regarding the settlement moneys. You have to wonder if the $490 million is enough money, especially when the Nisga'a have to set up their infrastructure, housing, roads, schools, water and sewer, just to name a few. That's not to mention the upkeep of the maintenance cost of their existing community infrastructure. This meagre settlement amount will not meet the needs of the Nisga'a people when you consider the high population growth of aboriginal peoples in this country and in Nisga'a territory. If you compare that to back-pay settlements with a group of civil servants for only five to ten years, which was $3.6 billion, the Nisga'a are only getting $490 million for a wholesale purchase for the whole universe of their rights for eternity. This is unacceptable.

Regarding taxation, to add to the shortage of compensation dollars, Nisga'a families will have to start paying income tax in eight very short years. This would be fine if the Nisga'a already had a developed economic base to generate the money and tax revenue, but I know from my experience as a community developer and as an educator that eight years is not a long time in a family. For a very young family that has very few marketable skills and has not had someone working a job for a long time, eight years is not enough to catch up. If you consider the price these families will pay, it will be the women and children who will pay dearly, who will pay a big price for the payment of income tax. That's not to mention the other taxation regime that will come into force.

Regarding the application of provincial family law, on the surface it looks like Nisga'a women will have more protections than native women now have under the existing land management agreement. As you know, we have made interventions on that recent legislation before, and it has been passed by Parliament. But I am still concerned that if provincial family law applies to Nisga'a families, there won't be adequate recognition for the matrilineal culture of the Nisga'a and other first nations such as the Gitanyow and the Gitxsan, because provincial family law in B.C. is based on a nuclear family and a patrilineal model.

For example, under provincial custody laws, governments have just begun to recognize that grandparents have rights to access and custody of their grandchildren in family breakdown situations. The provincial law in B.C. is not ready to encompass fully the very close relationships of extended families that exist in traditional first nations communities. I don't want to see a situation in which grandparents will have to reform provincial law in a very costly process in order to look after their grandchildren.

Thank you very much.

I'd like to now introduce Hereditary Chief Barbara Clifton, from the Gitxsan First Nation.

The Chair: Chief Clifton, I think we met last week in Smithers. Go ahead.

Chief Barbara Clifton (Gitxsan Nation, British Columbia Native Women's Association): Yes, that's my home territory.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Chief Barbara Clifton: Good morning. It's an honour for me to be here, and I would like to thank the committee for travelling to B.C. to look at the different issues that impact many different people. It's part of our culture to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts that people make on our behalf. I want to acknowledge the Nisga'a people for achieving this treaty.

• 1000

I want to say that we have a very common history. We come from an area called T'oosimaax, and my clan is the Frog Clan. From this oral history and this common place, we journeyed to the Nisga'a lands, and some of us stayed there. My group went to the River of Mist, the Skeena River, and that's where we live.

I also want to be very clear that my daughter is married to an honourable Nisga'a man, and when the marriage happened, we abided by the laws of respect. So I have a very close connection to the Nisga'a people. It's really important for us to say this, and it's really important for us to say that the intermarriage is going to keep happening so that the history will remain connected, and so that our roads will be connected.

As a mother and a grandmother, it is my role in the Gitxsan Nation to be the voice to talk about the displacement of my people. What's hard for us is to come to continually explain ourselves in a process that is basically foreign to us. However, I must say that we have Gitxsan lawyers, and the brief I am going to read is very technical. I must say we've done the summary, and it is very technical language in the process to offer you a road map out of our dilemma and hopefully our resolution of some of the problems we presented to the committee when you were in B.C.

These are the joint recommendations of the Gitxsan and Gitanyow for amendments to Bill C-9 to protect Gitanyow and Gitxsan aboriginal rights and rights in treaty negotiations with the crown.

On November 16, 1999, the Gitanyow and Gitxsan made oral and written presentations to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nigsa'a Final Agreement. What follows is an elaboration of specific proposals for amending Bill C-9 as contained in the Gitanyow written submission to the standing committee.

I would like to comment that these submissions are written in the agreement. However, they are not written in the bill. What is in the bill are just a lot of numbers that are quite confusing. What we are asking is that these specific points be written in the bill.

The Chair: Chief Clifton, I just want to assure you that all the members around this table and all the members of the committee have had your brief distributed to them. You can summarize it. You don't have to read through the whole thing if you don't want to.

Chief Barbara Clifton: I won't.

The Chair: It's up to you. They're your ten minutes. You can do whatever you wish with them.

Chief Barbara Clifton: There will be portions of it that I will read.

The Chair: That's fine. That's just so you know they have it before them at this time.

Chief Barbara Clifton: Yes, that's the reason why we added things.

• 1005

The first part of this submission contains different things that are not really clear, and there are some specific things that need to be understood to know why we are presenting it in this way.

When the Gitxsan Nation looked at the bill, it was very confusing that some of the sections were not written out. So I'll repeat, that is what we are asking.

Therefore the Gitanyow and Gitxsan proposal is that Bill C-9 explicitly repeat paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 of the general provisions of the Nisga'a Final Agreement. It should be noted that other federal legislation, such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, includes such non-derogation provisions.

Bill C-9 should therefore be amended to include the following five non-derogation clauses.

One, nothing in the Nisga'a Final Agreement affects, recognizes, or provides any rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for any aboriginal people other than the Nisga'a Nation.

Two, for greater certainty, nothing in the act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the existing aboriginal or treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 for the aboriginal peoples of Canada other than the Nisga'a Nation.

Three, if a superior court of a province, the Federal Court of Canada, or the Supreme Court of Canada finally determines that any aboriginal people other than the Nisga'a Nation has rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 that are adversely affected by a provision of the Nisga'a Final Agreement:

(a) the provision will operate and have effect to the extent that it does not adversely affect these rights;

(b) if the provision cannot operate and have effect in a way that does not adversely affect these rights, the parties of the Nisga'a Final Agreement will make best efforts to amend that agreement to remedy or replace the provision; and

(c) notwithstanding paragraph (b), the provision will not operate and will not have effect to the extent that it does not adversely affect these rights.

Four, the ratification of the Nisga'a Final Agreement may not be invoked by Canada as a reason for not entering into a treaty or land claims agreement, within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with another aboriginal people, or for not including in such treaty or land claims agreement matters that would otherwise be included.

And five, if Canada or British Columbia enters into a treaty or land claims agreement, within the meaning of sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, with another aboriginal people, and if that treaty or land claims agreement adversely affects Nisga'a section 35 rights as set out in the Nisga'a Final Agreement...

Those are the main points the Gitxsan are proposing be included in Bill C-9. The rest of the brief was covered in their presentation. One way to deal with the overlap is if certain areas of the treaty are held in abeyance or suspended until some of these problems are addressed.

The Chair: Is that the end of your presentation?

Chief Barbara Clifton: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, thank you very much.

Now we'll go to five-minute rounds of questioning. We should have at least a couple of rounds in that time. We'll start with Mr. Scott from the Reform Party, please.

• 1010

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you very much.

Welcome to both Chief Clifton and Marilyn Buffalo. Thank you very much for your presentations.

To begin, Ms. Buffalo, I'd like to ask you what your views are with respect to the rights of Nisga'a women, particularly given the evidence that was presented by your organization at the hearings on Bill C-49. I appreciate that provincial laws under the Nisga'a treaty will apply to matrimonial or family breakdown situations, which is a step in the right direction. But I remain concerned—and I don't know whether it's a view you share—about the division of property in the event of a marriage breakdown, since property rights are not very clearly defined in the Nisga'a agreement. So I'd like your views on that.

Also, do you have any views with respect to the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the Nisga'a people in the event that future Nisga'a legislation infringes on individual rights, particularly as they may relate to the rights of Nisga'a women?

Could you please address those two issues for us?

The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Buffalo.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: Thank you very much.

I'd like to first respond to your question regarding matrimonial property. We had a very difficult time trying to get a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs, but I guess when they saw we were in Gitxsan territory, they were quick to meet with us and clarify that point entirely.

I'm told provincial laws will apply under this agreement. That being said, everyone should know that provincial laws are not exactly pure and puritan in their application on traditional lands and territories. There are problems with that, particularly when you have a very traditional matrimonial society where grandparents have rights and say over their their grandchildren and so on. It does pose difficulties. Even in other provinces where first nations children have rights or provincial governments have expressed that, it's been a difficulty.

I'll give you an example. I know this is the worst-case scenario nightmare for Canada, but I'll take for instance the case of the Tsuu T'ina inquiry. Provincial laws apply on reserve. The social worker came and tried to take custody of the children. Rather than going to the elders or someone who could mediate, immediate extreme action was taken. That is a worst-case scenario. It hurts me to have to use that as an example, but that's one I think all people in Canada are familiar with. That's regarding family law and child custody.

In the case of a family breakdown, almost always it's the woman who has to leave the home. I'm told provincial laws apply, but that's going to also bring in new problems, as I've just mentioned.

Regarding the application of the Charter of Rights, at eight o'clock last night we had a letter delivered to us from the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs clarifying that point. It's interesting how people can react to us, after we've been waiting for months and years for this clarification and for greater certainty. They now tell us the Charter of Rights will apply. So that's good for our lawsuit. That kind of letter really helps us a lot.

• 1015

I'm also told that if an aboriginal person within that territory feels their human rights have been violated, they can go directly to the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well. The Indian Act is null and void, as you know, so they can go straight to the human rights office.

Mr. Mike Scott: I'd just like to ask Chief Clifton—

The Chair: There are two seconds left, so we'll just go ahead and you can have your second round. We know that two seconds isn't enough time for a question and an answer.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I want to welcome Ms. Clifton and Ms. Buffalo, whom I know very well. We have even fought the same wars together. There was the time, a few years ago, when we demonstrated together before the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive. We are old comrades in arms who have fought the same battles.

Marilyn, I will repeat once more what I said regarding Bill C-49. I heard you say that the $490 million were not enough, that there was a lot of overlap between native nations and that those people would renounce their tax-exempt status. But you're right. All these issues are dealt with in the treaty.

My big concern, however, is to determine who has the mandate to lead a nation. I've always had the same problem, Marilyn. Who has the right to speak on behalf of a nation? I understand that you're here on behalf of the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow. I understand.

However, you also have to see my point of view, which is that the treaty was ratified by 60% of the Nisga'a. At least half of those who voted were women. Before deciding to fight for the Gitxsan or the Gitanyow, have you consulted Nisga'a women?

You're in a special situation because you represent women. However, the law recognizes that the Nisga'a chiefs were elected by their nation. That's how I see it as well. So I will repeat what I said previously regarding Bill C-49. I'm more confident now. It's not because I don't trust you, but it's a question of legal responsibility. Who is elected to determine the future of the nation? The chiefs.

I know that you represent the women, but it's something I struggle with. I don't see how you are right and the chiefs are wrong. It's very hard for me to do so. Could you just clarify your situation? Perhaps I misunderstood the scope of your mandate. Indeed, if you represent the Nisga'a women, I imagine you consulted them first. Do they support the treaty?

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Buffalo, go ahead, please.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: One day I hope that I can speak in my own language and you will have this kind of equipment for me. We will one day. I will see it in my lifetime, and you will help me.

• 1020

First I want to mention that the first nations women, no matter where they reside in this country, are the poorest of the poor. The average income is about $14,000 per household. Many of our women don't have the wherewithal to get to the meetings. They don't have cars, for instance. They don't have gas to put in the car if they have one.

We've put in a 1-800 number so that women, if they wish to call us and state their concerns, can call that 1-800 number. They can go to a pay phone even if they don't have a home phone. That's been one of the vehicles we've had.

I myself have travelled to those communities and I'm very familiar with the situations. Prior to being a national leader I was the policy adviser to a national chief, Ovide Mercredi. I had the privilege of working on the Delgamuukw case for approximately six months before it went to court. I was also the national leader who was asked to stand with the Gitxsan chiefs when the announcement was made at the Supreme Court. My office is recognized by the traditional hereditary chiefs in that territory. So I have the mandate, Mr. Bachand, to speak on behalf of the Gitxsan chiefs, whether they be male or female.

Mr. Claude Bachand: For the Nisga'a also?

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: For the Gitxsan chiefs.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Not for the Nisga'a?

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: I haven't formally, no; not with the chiefs. But for Delgamuukw and the Gitxsan chiefs I have been recognized and I stood with them when they made their announcement when the Supreme Court decision came down.

There's no gender restriction in the hereditary system. Women play a very important part in the traditional hereditary system and always have. It's not like you have to go to the polls every four years and find out if you're going to be re-elected; you're chief for life.

I'll ask my friend Barbara to comment on that also.

The Chair: Chief Clifton, we have about twenty seconds left.

Chief Barbara Clifton: I would just like to say that women are very important in our societies and we don't recognize the different steps the patrilineal system applies to. That would be my comment on that.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: We don't need affirmative action.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

For the next five-minute round we have Ms. Davies for the NDP.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much, chairperson.

I'd like to thank both of you for being here today. I think it's good to have a very diverse debate and to hear different points of view on the Nisga'a Final Agreement. I don't think it should be a surprise to us or to anybody that there is a whole range of opinions out in the first nations communities about this particular treaty or court decisions or where it is we're headed. I think it's good to have that debate and it's good to hear from people and particularly from your organization.

I wrote down one of the things you said, Ms. Buffalo. You feel that ancient knowledge and traditional culture will be gone from the Nisga'a people as a result of the treaty. In a lot of the testimony I've heard, a lot of the witnesses have a different viewpoint. They see the treaty and the process that's been gone through as a way of actually retaining and strengthening traditional culture and strengthening that community. There are obviously differences of opinion.

I guess the question I'm interested in would be for Chief Clifton. I certainly understand that not all first nations communities agree with this treaty. Why would we expect that there would be 100% agreement on anything? But in terms of what alternative there is, the Nisga'a Nation, the Nisga'a people, decided to enter into this process and this negotiation, and it has taken them a very long time to arrive at this final agreement, which we hope will be ratified.

• 1025

I don't feel that has to dictate everything that follows. I think that has been stated many, many times, certainly in British Columbia. What happens with the Gitxsan people or the Gitanyow people may have a different result, a different outcome, in terms of a treaty process or whatever is undertaken.

I guess the question I want to ask you is this. If you don't agree with this, what alternative specifically are you proposing? It seems to me that if there is an overlap between other first nations and the Nisga'a, that too must be looked at and resolved through negotiation. I wonder if you agree with that, or are you suggesting some other kind of approach that we have not heard about yet?

The Chair: Chief Clifton, go ahead, please.

Chief Barbara Clifton: Thank you.

We have stated that we support the Nisga'a treaty for the Nisga'a people. We have a problem called the overlap. You asked for a positive process to address this particular problem. For the Gitanyow and the Gitxsan nations, we have provided this in this brief, and that's all we will... I think it's a very positive approach, and it's the best approach we can have at this very last minute.

Ms. Libby Davies: I'm glad to hear you say that. So you're not suggesting that this process, this ratification of the final agreement with the Nisga'a people, should be held up. You just want to ensure that whatever overlap there is will be addressed through these amendments—you hope—by putting them before the committee, and also, I assume, through other negotiations. In fact, are those negotiations taking place now?

Chief Barbara Clifton: Remember, the two nations are very busy doing things. I think the Nisga'a time is very much involved in making sure the treaty is completed. I'm not going to comment about the next process that's going to happen. But this road map we have presented and have every hope of inclusion—that is all we're asking.

The Chair: You still have more time.

Ms. Libby Davies: That's okay.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy from the Conservative Party, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to thank Chief Barbara Clifton and Marilyn Buffalo for appearing today. We are interested in hearing what you have to say.

I was most interested in your discussion about a matrilineal society, and really this is a little outside of the Nisga'a treaty. My understanding of what you are saying is that somehow that society is going to be threatened or abrogated by modern-day treaties, such as the Nisga'a treaty, and I'm not sure I agree with that, either in part or in whole.

There are a number of matrilineal societies certainly in existence within the greater overall Canadian fabric. A lot of them that have been established, your own and many other cultures that have come to Canada and have been established as matrilineal societies for thousands of years—they haven't been threatened by the Canadian Constitution, or even hundreds of years ago when the laws were much more abrupt and much less understanding of individual cultures and rights. So I'm not sure they're somehow a threat to your tradition.

It seems that tradition—and I'd like your opinion on this—is kept alive by the people who carry those traditions. Traditions are not kept alive by some type of artificial law or regulation placed by governments. I'd just like some further discussion, if that's the way you understand that or if that's the way you see it.

• 1030

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: First I guess I'd like to ask you to be more specific in your question. What other matrilineal societies are you making reference to?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: My wife comes from a matrilineal society that's several thousand years old. Her ancestors left Israel, went to Russia, came to Canada, and they certainly continue to be a matrilineal society. In no way, shape, or form is it anything but.

So there are matrilineal societies, and many of them... My own ancestry, although it is no longer matrilineal—we've dropped the “Mac” from our name—certainly goes back to a society that at one time... the Picts in Scotland were matrilineal. We've lost that. But there are societies that are.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: How did you lose that?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would say refusal to integrate with the rest of the world, and somehow there's a whole... We're getting off the subject.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: I think that was a very good answer.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are matrilineal societies. There are cases where they've been lost. Where they've been maintained, they've been maintained by cultural and tribal strengths that maintained religious and cultural traditions. In the natural process of evolution of the world, is that something artificial laws can control, or is that a strength of the culture and traditions that control it?

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: I think that's a very good question, and I think you answered some of it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Half of it.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: Yes. To be fair to us, probably since contact with white men we have gone through several stages of colonization, as I'm sure your people have as well. Different legislative regimes have come by.

For a long time we were forbidden to perform our ceremonies and our potlatch, to give you one example, and that wasn't that long ago. It wasn't that long ago, for instance, in my family, and I'm sure in Chief Clifton's family, where those were outlawed.

So yes, that was a threat, and that was a piece of legislation in this country and in its history that we should not be proud of. That had a detrimental impact on our matrilineal societies.

Any time you have foreign laws—and the Indian Act was a good one too. It's been around for a couple of hundred years. If you study the history of the Indian Act, you will see how the spirit and intent and oral history that have been passed down from generation to generation have been interrupted by legislation through time. This is not new.

I encourage you to study the history of that. It's patrilineal-based legislation that is foreign and has been imposed upon our people at different times throughout history.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I guess my point is that a matrilineal society—

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, you're out of time. There will hopefully be another round if we can get people to keep to their times.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll come back.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell for the government, please go ahead.

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

Hello.

In some of your comments, Marilyn, I know you were concerned with the way Indian culture has dealt with families, with marriages, and with child custody, let's say. But in looking over this agreement, I would think that there was a lot of room for trying to incorporate Indian or Nisga'a culture into the government they're going to create.

One of the things I read is that the Nisga'a citizens have the right to practice the Nisga'a culture in a manner consistent with this agreement. I think that would be one area where they have an opportunity to work with that.

Under culture and language, I also see that the Nisga'a government may make laws to preserve, promote, and develop Nisga'a culture and language. I know if they are not up to the same standards as provincial or federal laws, that's where the provincial and federal laws can come in to make sure they're up to the same standards.

Under the section for marriages and social services, they can also make laws with respect to those.

• 1035

Under child custody,

94. Nisga'a Government has standing in any judicial proceedings in which custody of a Nisga'a child is in dispute, and the court will consider any evidence and representations in respect of Nisga'a laws and customs in addition to any other matters it is required by law to consider.

Do you think that's a reassurance in the agreement that those types of situations will try to take into consideration Nisga'a customs and some of the evidence that you were saying you felt should be part of this agreement?

The Chair: Ms. Buffalo.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: I will respond to that, and then I'll give it over to my colleague.

You obviously have had more time to review the text than we have had. You have policy assistance; we don't. You've read this over and over. We have too. I've read those passages. But I've lived in an Indian community all my life, and I know provincial laws are not perfect—and they're patrilineal, as I stated earlier.

You have to remember that you have an overlap situation, where the majority of the Nisga'a territory has been claimed and there's a dispute there with the Gitanyow and the Gitxsan. You can't bunch up all those Indians in the same basket. You have different cultures and different traditional laws, and that's what I'm discussing. That's what I'm talking about.

So you're going to have problems regardless of how perfect you think the document may be. You're going to have difficulties in the cases of intermarriage.

The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell, you have more time.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I need to point out one thing you said. I don't think anybody in this whole committee, whether on that side or this side, has said this agreement is perfect. I think every one of us has gone on record during the time in which we've had these hearings and said we know it's not perfect, but it is a document we feel most people can work with.

I can honestly say that there are people I can vouch for with the Nunavut agreement who would say it's not perfect, but they felt they could live with it. That's the approach most of us have taken with this. That's not to say we haven't listened to people with open minds. I know there are serious concerns.

All I'm saying is don't you feel there is some room in the agreement in regard to the types of concerns you have regarding traditional ways of handling family matters, some room to try it out to see if they can work within the two cultures and integrate a little more of maybe the way Indians dealt with family matters? Don't you think there's a little room in there to incorporate some of that in the agreement?

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: That will take some time to look into, in very serious depth, to see how that will impact the diversity of the different cultures that live in that district. As you know, even in the case of Nunavut, there were overlap difficulties, and there still are.

Also, what will happen in the case of difficulties with families, Inuit versus Indian in Nunavut, is the same as will apply in the Nisga'a, where there are those diverse nations intermarrying. You need experts in that field in order to address those. It's not as cut and dried as we'd like to see it, in black and white on paper. We're talking about oral history and a long tradition.

I'll ask Barbara to comment on that.

The Chair: Ms. Buffalo, we're out of time. We're into Mr. Scott's time right now.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to address my next question to Chief Clifton.

I think this point needs to be very clear, because based on testimony we heard from the Gitanyow and Gitxsan chiefs in Smithers last Tuesday, and based on discussions that took place here yesterday afternoon when Chief Phil Fontaine, Billy Diamond, and others were before the committee, I think there's a misunderstanding. I want to make sure everybody, including all the members of this committee, understands this clearly, because I think I do.

• 1040

Like the Gitanyow and Gitxsan chiefs who appeared before this committee last week, you said today that you support the Nisga'a agreement. The chiefs don't want to hold up passage of the agreement, provided that the concerns over the overlap are addressed in a fashion that is satisfactory—in other words, through the kinds of amendments you've proposed.

But the chiefs we heard from in Smithers—and I'm assuming that you have the same position—said that if the Parliament of Canada is not willing to make these amendments you've suggested, in that case you would not want to see the Nisga'a agreement proceed unless there's some other form of agreement between the Gitxsan and Gitanyow and the Government of Canada that gives you the security you need so that your concerns over the overlap are addressed. Am I correct on that?

Chief Barbara Clifton: You are correct.

Mr. Mike Scott: I just wanted to make that very clear, because I don't think it has been clear to some members of this committee based on comments they made.

I'd invite you to read the transcript of what was said here yesterday afternoon. One member of the committee said very clearly that in his view this treaty didn't need to be held up and that this was the testimony of the Gitxsan and Gitanyow chiefs. I'm hearing very clearly that what the chiefs have said and what you've said is that it doesn't need to be held up provided that specifically these amendments are made. If these amendments are not made, that's a different ball game altogether.

Chief Barbara Clifton: That's right.

Mr. Mike Scott: Okay, thank you very much.

Chief Barbara Clifton: I want to repeat that these clauses are in the Nisga'a treaty. We want these clauses on Bill C-9.

Mr. Mike Scott: You want them as part of the legislation—

Chief Barbara Clifton: That's right.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: We want them to be read into this legislation.

Mr. Mike Scott: —and not just in the treaty.

Chief Barbara Clifton: That's right.

Mr. Mike Scott: I think we understand. Actually there are a couple of changes that you have over and above the wording that's in the treaty. They're a matter for the committee to deal with when we go through clause-by-clause, but I have noted them, and they've been noted by others here as well.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Scott, you actually have nearly two minutes left if you want to take them. I'm not forcing you to, it's just that it's your time.

Mr. Mike Scott: I think that was the most important point. I just think the committee should be very aware that, based on the testimony we had from the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow chiefs, there is a negative side to this, although I don't want to belabour the negative side of things because I don't think that's very helpful. Everybody heard that last week, so we don't want to get into that. The positive side is what we have in front of us, and as long as the committee and Parliament are prepared to accept that, then I think—

A voice: Does that mean Reform will vote for it?

The Chair: Let's go on now, please.

Mr. Bonin, would you like to have five minutes right now?

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): I'll put up my hand if I do.

The Chair: Okay, I'm asking Mr. O'Reilly then.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for appearing. It's good to see you again, Chief.

In my mind, the aboriginal tradition is best served by treaties and not by the Indian Act. I see the Nisga'a agreement as one that takes it out of the Indian Act, and that's an important step. We all agree it's not perfect. I don't know that anyone would say there is ever a perfect agreement, no matter what agreement you enter into. There will always be someone who does not agree with you. There is a difference of opinion. If we were all the same, of course, life wouldn't be very much fun.

I think imposing rules on the aboriginal people under the Indian Act is something Canada has a great shame in. I think it should have stepped forward long ago. It has created what is almost a subculture in the big cities, where natives are part of the homeless living in the streets and part of the problems in a lot of our cities. I feel that, given the opportunity, native tradition and aboriginal tradition is best served by the people themselves administering their own justice, their own policing or their own social programs. But maybe I'm wrong.

• 1045

You pointed something out in saying that you can't create a tax base in a municipal structure if there is no income, or if there's only a lump sum of money given out. I want you to expand on that. I would be very concerned if what we've been told is in fact quite different from what you're telling us: that there will not be a tax base, that there will not be any way to collect taxes from people who are still in poverty. I wondered if you would care to comment on that.

Chief Barbara Clifton: I think it's very important. What Marilyn said is that it would take time to develop economically, and she feels eight years is not a long time to be able to generate the kind of economic development that would sustain a tax base. That's quite different from saying what I thought you said. Did I understand you?

Mr. John O'Reilly: I thought your concern was that you would still be in poverty eight years from now, and that there would not be a tax base to collect from, so you would end up being further in poverty. That's what I understood.

Chief Barbara Clifton: No, she was pointing out that she feels it will take longer to put in the infrastructure needed to generate the kind of economic development that would be needed to sustain the economic... You need time to grow. That's basically what she's saying.

Mr. John O'Reilly: That was the concern I picked up on. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly on it, but that concern is one that would take us to the question of how much time is the proper time. If it isn't eight years, then what is that time? Is there a time period in which you feel a generation of people can become self-sustaining, create a tax base and administer their own system? Take your time.

Chief Barbara Clifton: No, I can speak very clearly. I have some papers. I'm a chartered accountant, and I've already done a shakedown on another nation, although I'm not going to name that nation. This group has had municipal government for a long time, and they already had a base.

I'm also very familiar with the Nisga'a valley. I've run many projects and have been involved in different types of projects with them, so I know the situation.

In this other nation for which I've done the projections in looking at what it took to develop them, I'd say it's a minimum of fifteen to twenty years. That's backpedalling for aboriginal people.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: All right.

[Translation]

I want to come back to the issue of overlap, since it is a sticking point in the treaty. While the committee was travelling, we heard that this was a huge issue, especially in Smithers. I also learned, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Nisga'a began by claiming 100% of their territory, but that they now claim only 8%. For their part, the Gitxsan and Gitanyow, if I understood correctly, won't budge from claiming 100% of the land. This has to be sorted out if we want a clear understanding of the situation. In any case, that's how I see it.

Now, let's see how the bill and the treaty deal with this issue. It's basically up to both parties to decide. I will therefore ask you to follow my reasoning, you especially, Ms. Clifton.

• 1050

Section 4 of the bill stipulates:

4. (1) The Nisga'a Final Agreement is approved, given effect and declared valid and has the force of law.

This means that the treaty before us will have the force of law once the bill is passed.

Now, should the treaty and provincial and federal laws be inconsistent on a particular issue, which of the three should prevail? The answer lies in section 6:

6. In the event of an inconsistency or conflict between the Nisga'a Final Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law—including in this Act—

It's the one I'm reading.

[...] or provincial law [...], that Agreement prevails to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.

This means that if we can't agree on which federal or provincial law prevails, the Agreement takes precedence. The Agreement contains references to sections 33, 34 and 35, which address the issue of duplication, Ms. Clifton. These sections address the following problem: if a federal or provincial court rules that the Nisga'a territory overlaps your territory, you may be granted title to the land. The treaty also says that if the Nisga'a have to give up a piece of land, they will be compensated.

I've thought a lot about pleasing everyone all the time. I'm a politician. If you can please everybody in politics, good for you. However, it's not always possible. The way I see it, you would like to put new sections into the bill which the bill itself and the treaty already resolve in your favour.

That's the way I see it, and I would like to know what you think, Ms. Clifton, whether you think I'm wrong or whether in fact there is some truth to it.

[English]

Chief Barbara Clifton: Thank you.

We clearly understand sections 33, 34, and 35. We are asking a very small favour to publish it in Bill C-9. We understand that it is the process we can invoke to settle the overlap.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand, you have one minute.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Ms. Clifton, I clearly understand what you want, but I'd like to come back to sections 4 and 5. Section 4 of Bill C-9 says that the Agreement is declared valid and has the force of law. Section 6 says that if there is a problem, the Agreement prevails. Do you follow me?

If the Agreement prevails, sections 33, 34 and 35 already have the force of law and apply. Since they apply and since it is recognized that you have rights and that the Nisga'a should not have taken part of your territory, they will hand it over to you. Under the Agreement, you get the land and the federal government will have to compensate the Nisga'a. That's my interpretation of these sections, that's my explanation.

[English]

Chief Barbara Clifton: Yes, I understand your reasoning.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Do you agree with that?

Chief Barbara Clifton: I'm not going to comment.

The Chair: I don't have any person from the government side on my list unless somebody indicates to me.

Ms. Davies, go ahead and you'll get the five minutes.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Chairperson.

I represent a riding that's in Vancouver, Vancouver East. I've actually not been to the Nass Valley. I'm not part of any of the direct communities that are impacted by the Nisga'a Final Agreement, but I've been following the process and I've been very interested in it, because I do represent communities, particularly the downtown east side, that probably have the highest urban aboriginal population in B.C. Every day I see what happens to aboriginal people, the women who are on the street at night and the women who have disappeared from violence or who have been murdered.

• 1055

Just yesterday we had a report paid for by Health Canada that shows that the HIV and AIDS infection rate, particularly in the downtown east side, is the highest and more and more people are dying. So for me the issue of urban aboriginal people and how that's been sort of left off is just critical, because I see it every day.

I've seen the process of what's happened with the Nisga'a agreement as something very significant. In a bigger picture, it affects my community in a positive way. I do agree with you that this agreement cannot be used as sort of a one size fits all. There are different cultures, there are different histories. There are different negotiating teams, for one thing. When you put people at a table, what they produce is very individual and unique to that particular table. I believe that very much.

In terms of the process of having a table and saying that the Government of Canada, the Government of B.C., and in this case the leadership of the Nisga'a people are at the table to work this through and to arrive at an agreement they feel they can live with is very significant. What I hope comes from it is not that we'll now just put that stamp right across the country, but that we will recognize that we have to engage in that kind of process with other first nations and, I think more importantly, that we engage in that process in terms of the urban environment. I know there's a lot of debate about that, about how that would happen. How do we actually make sure the federal government's fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people in the urban environment is valued and implemented in ways people are desperate for?

I'd just like you to comment on that in terms of the bigger picture, Ms. Buffalo or Ms. Clifton. While you might have your criticisms of this document, in terms of it being a step in a path that maybe allows us to address other issues, I see it as something that is significant. I wonder if you agree with that.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: The Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which the United Native Nations is party to, have just recently won a landmark court case. By the way, the Assembly of First Nations was silent on that. They didn't participate in that court case. We have spent 12 years of our lives in support of John Corbière. We won the Corbière case, which means that aboriginal first nations residing out of their reserve have a right to vote.

Even more importantly than that, I don't think very many people have had the opportunity to actually review the impact a court decision is going to have on new legislation and the current ones. Definitely it's going to mean that wide-sweeping changes have to be made, particularly when 60% of the population live off reserve. You're right: the good majority of them are women and children, and some of them have lived off reserve for two or three generations now. So definitely it will have a long-term impact.

I thank you for expressing your concern about the urban aboriginal women. I know they appreciate it very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Davies, you have 30 seconds left. Because I said we'd go for two rounds, I'm going to allow Mr. Keddy to have a question after you.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, it's okay.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, please finish off.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just go back briefly. The reason I brought up the issue of matrilineal society is that I think we're in disagreement on whether or not matrilineal society can survive through its culture and its religions. I'm not denying that any society, any culture, any religion can be threatened by outside forces at all. I'm not trying to deny that. What I'm saying is that it's the strength of the culture and the people that continues to survive in traditions that are carried down. I'm not trying to oversimplify that. I just wanted to further elaborate on that issue.

My question is to you directly, Ms. Buffalo. Listening to the statements you made when you first came to the table, I was getting the feeling that somehow this is a bad treaty and that it doesn't allow the protection certainly of traditions and it doesn't allow the protection of cultures and languages. I would totally disagree with that.

• 1100

I think the thing we've done here, which we'd failed to do for hundreds of years in this country, is address our first nation as a nation. We've dealt with them as a nation. They will have their form of government. There are things about this I'm very biased about as someone who is a non-native looking from the outside in, because it reflects much of the legislative reality in Canada now, while it also protects tradition and culture and religion, if you will.

However, if we don't go this route, if we don't sit down and deal as a people to a people, and we don't form these types of treaties, given the reality that two cultures have met and we're never going to change that, what other solution is there?

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: We don't have the time in five minutes flat to go into your family history and mine and the impact legislation has had on either one or both. We might have had clans connected at one point. Who knows?

I will say that I noticed, Mr. Keddy, that you come from Nova Scotia. The Mi'kmaq First Nation there is matrilineal-based, and they have also been in the news lately regarding the Marshall decision. The Supreme Court has upheld a treaty as old as 1760, which has been passed on through oral tradition. So some of that has survived and will continue to do so.

In spite of the difficulties we face as first nations women, we will continue to teach our children the importance of the treaties and the survival of the rights, however you wish to define them, if it's aboriginal law, treaty first nations law, inherent right or traditional right—those are all different...

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Without a modern-day treaty—and that's exactly the issue at stake in Nova Scotia—without some type of closure where both groups know exactly where their future belongs and where they're headed... If we continue, how do we move forward without it?

I look at this specific treaty and see it as an excellent treaty. I see it as a way for both cultures to move forward to the future, and in particular for the Nisga'a culture to be protected, which I didn't feel was there prior to this. That's nothing derogatory to the Nisga'a. It's the fact that Canadian law was very lax about recognizing traditions and cultures, and the Indian Act, on a good day, was a racist document—it still is.

Ms. Marilyn Buffalo: I can't comment on whether people think it's racist or not. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

You heard the national chief state yesterday that we have a political right. Well, native women also have a political right to state for the record—and I think if native women had been at the table negotiating, the stakes would have been higher, and they would have been a lot higher than what is being settled for, for wholesale change to historical rights. I remain on record as stating that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

It remains for me as chair, on behalf of all the members of this committee, to thank you for your testimony today. We appreciate your being here. As always, the views of witnesses add to our deliberations in very special ways. Every viewpoint is very welcome. Thank you very much.

I'm going to suspend for about two minutes to exchange our witnesses, and then we'll commence with our witnesses. We'll probably go five minutes over to make up for this five minutes.

• 1104

• 1107

The Chair: Order. Thank you very much.

We now welcome to the committee Mr. Gary Livingstone, who is from the British Columbia Mining Association. Your position, I understand, is president and CEO. Welcome to our hearings.

We'll continue with the way we have done this throughout. We're at meeting 18 right now. Basically, we're going to allow you 10 or 15 minutes maximum to give an opening statement, and then we'll do a rotation of five-minute rounds of questioning with the members of the committee. So whenever you're ready, please go ahead.

Mr. Gary Livingstone (President and Chief Executive Officer, British Columbia Mining Association): Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments today.

We're not here to debate the clause-by-clause details contained in the Nisga'a agreement. Our interest in coming here is simply to offer our comments and our observations with respect. And hope our comments and our observations will be helpful to B.C.'s aboriginal people, helpful to governments, and helpful to our industry and to the future of Canada.

Before I speak to the Nisga'a agreement, I would like to comment briefly on the treaty process in British Columbia.

The mining industry in British Columbia has been a staunch supporter of the settlement of native land claims. We remain so today. Getting on with the negotiations and with establishing native land-claim treaties is the right thing to do. We encourage both levels of government and the aboriginal people to continue their best efforts in this regard.

Moving the treaty process forward and resolving native land claims fairly and equitably is in the best interests of our country. The lack of progress in resolving land claims only adds to the increasing uncertainty over access to land and resources. For our industry, access is the most important issue we face. So we urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to move the treaty process forward. Done properly, treaties will establish clear areas of jurisdictional responsibility and take the guesswork out of who has regulatory authority and how far that authority extends. Resolving these current unknowns will go a long way in providing investors with the certainty they need to make long-term investment decisions.

Is it possible ever to achieve the perfect treaty? Probably not. Treaties are negotiated, and as such do not tend to give any one group all it wants. They reflect a blend of interests. The Nisga'a agreement is no exception. Our task now is to learn from what has been accomplished in the Nisga'a agreement so that we can make improvements in the treaty work that remains ahead. It is in this vein that we offer the following.

• 1110

The Nisga'a agreement itself has little immediate impact on current mineral exploration activities. The settlement lands identified in the treaty affect only four small mineral claims, and the government has agreed to compensate those claim holders for the expropriation of their claims. However, it is the future of mineral exploration and development on the crown land surrounding the settlement lands that is of concern to us.

The agreement creates a 10,000-square-kilometre Nass wildlife area, which is where the Nisga'a are expected to take their wildlife harvesting allocations. This territory, which is five times the size of the Nisga'a settlement lands, will be managed by a joint provincial and Nisga'a advisory committee. There is a flaw in the Nisga'a agreement. It exists in the notion that these 10,000 square kilometres of crown land can be effectively co-managed between the Nisga'a and the provincial government.

Some in our industry, particularly those who explore for minerals, interpret this co-management approach as giving the Nisga'a a de facto veto over resource activities on those crown areas. Whether that turns out to be true or not in practice can only be proven over time. However, it is the perception of this de facto veto that is actually adding to the uncertainty in the area, rather than diminishing it.

It is already tough enough getting a mine development approved in B.C. by provincial and federal authorities. Adding another level of government to that process will only add to the problem, acting as a deterrent to mineral investment and development. Our preference would be to see mining activity in these areas regulated by a single level of government authority.

The primary purpose of treaties is to address the interests and ambitions of the aboriginal community. The mining industry supports that principle. At the same time, however, we believe that treaties must meet, or at least not unduly interfere with, the interests and ambitions of the broader provincial community. The co-management provisions in the Nisga'a agreement fall short on this second count.

The concern we express today needs to be taken into account and improved upon in negotiating future agreements. Just last week, on November 17, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a substantial clarification of its controversial judgment on native fishing, saying that it does not give aboriginal peoples access to forestry, mineral, and oil resources on crown lands. This rare clarification by the high court, a six-to-zero decision, leaves no doubt about who regulates and controls resource activities on crown land: the provincial and federal governments. In negotiating agreements like Nisga'a, neither government should be negotiating away its responsibility to allocate and manage resources.

Before I conclude today, I want to speak about another aspect of our business as it relates to this and other negotiated treaties. That is, access to resources and what it means to British Columbia.

B.C. is somewhat unique, given the extreme mountainous terrain that makes up the majority of our province. The only way to get around on the ground is by travelling along the valley bottoms, the very same valley bottoms where aboriginal settlement lands will be determined as part of the treaty process. This represents a serious threat to the ability to access mineral potential that lies beyond the settlement areas. There has already been significant erosion of access to mineral-rich lands in B.C., which has arisen out of the redesignation of multiple-use lands to single use, principally to fuel park development.

The establishment of new parks, special management zones, municipal lands, lands designated under the Agriculture Protection Act, reforested areas, and the ever-present “green shadow” that surrounds all these lands and parks further erodes the land base on which mineral tenures can be acquired. Now the transfer of lands as part of an aboriginal land claim is having the same effect.

If control of a transportation corridor is given to a single interest group, that group can control the development or operation of a property, either by denying access through the corridor or by charging a toll for its use. There is some doubt that the specific provisions within the Nisga'a agreement that were intended to deal with this issue will actually deliver access certainty. With that doubt hanging over this agreement, mineral exploration and development is further hindered. Future treaty negotiations must address this concern.

• 1115

Mining in British Columbia continues to be a major contributor to the provincial economy. We're a $4 billion industry, the number two resource industry in the province. Last year, mining in our province was responsible for generating a billion dollars in tax revenue for governments. That's a billion dollars in revenues to government every year, money that is crucial to the delivery of education, health care, and other services we all want for ourselves and our children.

Last year mining generated 56% of all rail freight revenue in this country. Mining products accounted for 69% of total port volume, far greater than grain shipments and all container traffic. And here's something else to think about: Boliden's Myra Falls, a medium-sized copper and zinc mine operating in Strathcona Park in Vancouver Island, generates the same revenue as the entire cruise ship industry in British Columbia. It's quite astounding that one medium-sized mine operating quietly inside the borders of a provincial park generates the equivalent economic benefit of the entire cruise ship industry.

Mineral exploration is the lifeblood of mining. If people aren't spending money looking for mines, no mines will be found to replace those that are nearing the end of their productive lives. If that situation lasts for too long, there simply will not be a mining industry in our province in a few more years. Mineral exploration in B.C. has plummeted dramatically; it's expected to be just $25 million this year. To sustain this industry, we need to attract exploration spending, like we did just a few years ago in the early 1990s, of between $150 million and $200 million.

ln light of this fact, every effort must be made to encourage mineral exploration investment and remove uncertainties such as land access that hinders that spending. In the settlement of native land claims, regulatory control over mineral resource activities must be clear and unequivocal. There must be no doubt as to who the landlord is and who is calling the shots.

We do not object to natives being granted regulatory authority over mineral resource development within the settlement lands themselves. We do object to the notion of co-management, the lack of clarity as to who regulates resource activities outside of these settlement lands.

Our industry enjoys good relations with B.C.'s aboriginal people. In northwest British Columbia there's a gold mine called Eskay Creek. It's owned and operated by the Homestake mining company. It's on crown land, land that is part of the traditional territory of the Tahltan Nation, an area of the province of very limited industrial activity, where communities suffer from chronically high unemployment.

At Eskay Creek mine, one of the richest gold and silver deposits in the world, more than one third of the total number of employees are Tahltan. Band members are involved in all aspects of the operation, including road maintenance, ore and supply trucking, and catering services. This mutually beneficial relationship has created a strong bond between the communities, the people of the area, and Homestake.

The Tahltan believe in resource development. Their only caveat is that their communities and people benefit from the mines in their traditional territory. Their expectations are not different from any other community faced with high unemployment and limited opportunities. The Tahltan-Eskay Creek relationship works because both sides work at it. The same principle must continue to be applied in the efforts to advance the treaty process. Both sides have to really work at it, and again we encourage you in this regard.

The points we are making today are points that will benefit all people of our province and indeed all Canadians. Minerals in sufficient quantity represent enormous wealth and opportunity to the people who own them. And in B.C. and in the rest of Canada, the owners happen to be the people who live there, native and non-native. What we do as an industry is perform a service for the owners of that resource. We dig the minerals out of the ground for them, and in doing so we create jobs, we create wealth, and we create opportunities. Our work is complicated, it's expensive, and it takes a lot of engineering expertise. But at the end of the day, it's just a service we perform for the owners.

• 1120

If the people of British Columbia and Canada are to continue to benefit from the mineral wealth they own, then access to the land that contains those minerals must be assured. If we limit that access, or if we maintain or create regulatory uncertainty around who has authority over it, then we limit the benefits that any of us, natives and non-natives alike, can enjoy.

Thank you.

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

We'll start our five-minute rounds of questions and answers with Mr. Scott. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Livingstone, for that presentation.

If I understand the presentation, the main area of concern is the 10,000-square-kilometre area known as the Nisga'a wildlife management area. Mr. Livingstone, at the present time, given the uncertainty regarding who is actually going to regulate and control mineral exploration and development in that land, is it your view that members of your organization, member companies, would not spend money for exploration at this time in that 10,000-square-kilometre area?

Mr. Gary Livingstone: My comments were meant to be general. With respect to the Nass wildlife area, there's very little activity there right now, just because of the nature of the terrain. It's heavily forested, so there has not been a lot of activity in that area.

My points today were meant to point out the fact that if this arrangement is replicated in other treaty settlements around the province, especially where there are areas of potential mineral development, yes, this kind of uncertainty will discourage exploration activity from taking place. People will be very concerned as to actually who is going to be calling the shots. Mining is such a high-risk business anyway, so any more levels of uncertainty that are put on access and the eventual development of a mine will be enough to drive investors to other jurisdictions.

Mr. Mike Scott: What I'm coming to, Mr. Livingstone, is that there's been much talk with respect to this treaty, particularly on the part of those who are promoting it, that the treaty brings certainty to British Columbia and that the treaty will open the door to investment. We know that because of the uncertainty respecting aboriginal claims, investment in British Columbia is severely curtailed at the present time.

We're told the Nisga'a treaty is the way to go, if I can use that term, and that this is going to be the kind of resolution about standing aboriginal claims that will provide certainty. What you're telling the committee, if I understand it correctly, is that the wildlife management provisions in the treaty and the wildlife management zone are not certain. I appreciate that there's little mineralization in this particular area, or at least that's the current wisdom, but what you're saying in effect is if this is repeated in other parts of the province, this will not lead to certainty, and investment will still not flow to areas that have this kind of encumbrance on them. Is that correct?

Mr. Gary Livingstone: The way we interpret the language in this particular area—and again, our concern, as you have pointed out, is outside the settlement lands—there are a lot of vagaries in the language. If the first nation involved did not want to encourage, say, resource development, our concern is that that language could be used to thwart or hinder that development. With that uncertainty, you would likely have investors steering away from those areas where these kinds of arrangements were in place.

Mr. Mike Scott: Just to sum up then, very quickly, the certainty is not there with these kinds of arrangements in place.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: In this particular area, in this Nass wildlife area, yes, there are uncertainties that if replicated in other areas would discourage investment.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you very much, Mr. Livingstone.

• 1125

The Chair: You still have thirty seconds if you wish.

Mr. Mike Scott: That's all right.

The Chair: No?

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Livingstone, I must admit that I am pleasantly surprised by your presentation. When we hear from mining industry representatives that a climate of certainty can only be attained by signing as many treaties as possible, it fits in perfectly with my views.

However, I also noted that you have some concerns. I would like to talk about them. One of the issues you mentioned is the erosion of access. Obviously, if we create more provincial parks and if we pass more farm regulations which prevent you from having access to your sites, there will be problems. Furthermore, you are surely aware that you can address your concerns to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I hope you have already done so. Indeed, many of these issues fall under the purview of the province.

I would like to know if you have spoken with anyone at the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia about how to address the problem of diminished access. I'd like to hear more about this.

You've also talked about mining exploration which is based on discovering what you're looking for. I understand perfectly. However, there are tax incentives which support exploration. At least that's the case in Quebec. Are there any such tax exemptions in British Columbia?

It's not only a matter of access. Of course, if you find a gold lode, you want to mine it. However, when the gold is gone, you want to find more. But it's not very cost effective to guess at where it might be and to drill here and there. That's where certain tax incentives provided by governments come in to help the mining industry. Please tell us more.

I can also understand that you have some concerns. I can see exactly why. You are not really afraid of the transfer to the Aboriginals or regulations put in place by the Aboriginal authorities. You are more concerned with co-management.

In that regard, I hope that someday we will have an opportunity to pursue this discussion, which will surely not reach a conclusion today. You are here with the Nisga'a today, but there will be many other land claims. I would just like to point out that the Indian Affairs Committee prepared an excellent report on co- management a few years ago. I could send you the report so that we can discuss it together if you think it contains any potential applications for the mining industry in British Columbia.

[English]

Mr. Gary Livingstone: I gather there are three main areas in your question.

The first area is contact with the British Columbia government. The answer is yes, we've been having dialogue with the government for a number of years, and I must say I'm not sure how successful we have been, based on what's been happening with mining investment in British Columbia.

The second point was on fiscal measures. You're right. I wish we had in British Columbia the same kinds of fiscal measures you have in Quebec. In fact we are in the process now of talking with the federal government as well as other provincial governments to try to come up with these fiscal enhancements, because that is a very positive way of encouraging investment.

That's very important, but it goes back to the fact that access is important. You can have those fiscal incentives, and that will spur exploration and development, which is good for the country, because you're going to find mines and you're going to create wealth and jobs. But our concern is, when you get into areas such as the Nass wildlife area, where you have other rules and regulations, it is more uncertain to explore there than it is in other jurisdictions. So with these fiscal measures, you will see an increase in exploration, but it won't be happening in these areas.

• 1130

Our concern in British Columbia is if you take the Nisga'a agreement and multiply it by fifty or sixty times, that creates a real problem when you superimpose that on the amount of land that is going to have certainty. That is our concern.

With respect to co-management, you are right. We've looked at that language. The vagaries really concern us. As I said in my talk, basically only time will tell whether or not our concerns are going to come forth or not. But it's over that time when this uncertainty and this perception will keep investment out, and that's the concern we have.

So we would like to see, at least in future agreements, stronger language to provide certainty with respect to the management of resources on crown lands.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the witness for appearing.

First of all, I think most of us recognize that mining operations from coast to coast to coast are threatened, without question, but particularly in B.C. and northwestern Canada, there have been other cases where mining has been threatened by government regulations, much more so than by land claims or by treaties. The Tatshenshini deposit was shut down. Through the enlargement of the boundaries of the Tuktut Nogait National Park, a major deposit there, or at least potential deposit, was never satisfactorily explored. It was shut down through government regulations.

In this particular treaty, which will become government regulation, when I look at the wildlife and migratory birds agreement, it states in there, on page 133 in paragraph 2:

2. The entitlement set out in paragraph 1 is a right to harvest in a manner that:

a. is consistent with:

i. the communal nature of Nisga'a harvest for domestic purposes, and

ii. the traditional seasons of the Nisga'a harvest; and

b. does not interfere with other authorized uses of Crown land.

Certainly mining would be another authorized use of crown land.

The key to remember here is that in these lands, this is only a wildlife management area. The Nisga'a certainly do not own this area. It's my understanding that they will have, if you care to use the term, joint jurisdiction, where and only where it affects wildlife. Do you read that differently? Because I thought, when I read subparagraph 2(b), “does not interfere with other authorized uses of Crown land”, that certainly would mean mining.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: I have that page as well. When you look at paragraph 3, it goes on and says:

Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2... provided that the Crown ensures that those authorized uses or dispositions do not...

and then it goes into (a) and (b). There are some questions as to how those would be interpreted with respect to subparagraph 2(b).

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would expect they would be interpreted as they deal with wildlife. It's not the case here, but if a significant migration of some caribou or whatever were being affected by blasting, perhaps there would be a short period of time when blasting would have to shut down, if it were a mine operation that used blasting.

I look at that and I think it further qualifies that. It says:

3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, the Crown may authorize uses of or dispose of Crown land, and any authorized use or disposition may affect the methods, times, and locations of harvesting wildlife under Nisga'a wildlife entitlements, provided that the Crown ensures that those authorized uses or dispositions do not:

a. deny Nisga'a citizens the reasonable opportunity to harvest wildlife under Nisga'a wildlife entitlements; or

b. reduce Nisga'a wildlife allocations.

• 1135

I guess this is where it will be decided, in the interpretation, but I think it's clear that the interpretation deals only with wildlife and is a recognition that if somehow you had a mining operation—and I'll tell you very bluntly, I support mining in a major way—maybe there would be some small nuances that would need to be worked out if that operation had a detrimental effect on wildlife. I can't imagine what that would be. Most mining operations are extremely small in total area.

Unfortunately, there are opponents to mining who would like to think that mining operations cover thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres, when really they're just a dot on the map and most people couldn't find one if they walked over it. But at the same time, to me, this legislation very clearly sets out and protects corporate interests—and mining interests, in this case.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: We hope you are right, but based on—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So do I.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: —what has been happening with various court decisions, some of our legal people have looked at this, and they say there are some questions here as to just what impacts they could have.

Our recommendation would be to just put words in here that would make it extremely clear that there would not be any impacts that would flow over from the intent, which is wildlife, to impact with respect to the operation of resource development. That's the only point we're making. All we're saying is that it seems to be ambiguous. I'm not a lawyer and I really can't—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I'm not either, I'll make it clear.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Mr. Bonin for five minutes.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. I too, of course, support mining; I have nine mines in my riding and I've worked in a mine.

In my riding, Inco has developed a mine that is, in surface area, 250 feet by 250 feet. They recoup the water to reuse the water. There are no environmental problems. The biggest eyesore on the property is the parking lot, because even the shaft is green to blend in with the forest in the back.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Those scrubbers worked.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: That's right.

Although mining creates a lot of wealth, it creates wealth for the provincial government. It creates very little wealth for the municipal government. The municipal government can only tax buildings that are built on the surface. So the new strategy—and it's legitimate and I would do it too—is to tear down buildings and crush the ore underground. So let's be clear on that: the wealth is created for the province, not for the municipalities.

My problem with your presentation is yet again a problem of attitude, because when we talk of minorities and first nations and aboriginals, I always narrow it down to a problem of attitude. I'm not impressed when I hear you read—and I'll reread it from the text—that

Band members are involved in all aspects of the operation, including road maintenance, ore and supply trucking, and catering services.

To me that's a problem of attitude. I see bands either as partners or competitors. I see them, with agreements such as this, as members of your mining association. I see the future president of your association being from the aboriginal communities that own mines, develop mines, and create wealth for themselves. Nowhere in this document do I see any resemblance to partnerships on a level playing field, between equals.

I still see “We're going to be nice guys, and we'll let them look after the roads and bring us some sandwiches”. That's the problem I have in most of the debates we've had. It's something you can't pinpoint and prove, but I see it—and we're staring at each other, Mr. Scott—as a problem of attitude.

• 1140

The day that I see this opening up and recognizing these communities as human beings, as our equals, I say we're going to reach some treaties that are even better than this one.

I guess I can simplify the question. How will you respond to the president of your association when he or she is an aboriginal, a first nation owner of a mine, and brings out this document and asks what your intent was, asks whether you did see them as equals?

Mr. Gary Livingstone: I guess there a couple of things. Number one, I disagree, obviously, with your insinuation that there is no respect with respect to dealings with the first nations, in particular the Tahltan Nation, as you have referred to. I think it's unlikely that you've ever been to the operation and actually talked to the chiefs and the people there. I have, and I can assure you that there is a very positive feeling.

There's a question of education. There's a huge area here of bringing on the first nations people who have never been exposed to the kind of technology that mining requires. Mining is a very high-tech industry and it takes time to bring these people on. For example, with respect to the catering agreement, they initially partnered with a company to provide the catering agreement to Homestake, to the Eskay Creek mine, just to learn how they could do it. Once they had done that, once they learned... now they've taken it over. So there is a progression.

Yes, obviously, we would love to see a Tahltan as president of that operation. In fact, a number of them are now working into supervisory positions. There is a very strong intent by the company and by the industry as a whole to bring these people on as partners. Unfortunately, it takes time to bridge that gap, but I want to assure you that the intent is there to move in that direction.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I'm encouraged by your response, and I appreciate that it's on record.

I just want to note that for miners in my community it's not uncommon for them to make $90,000 a year. It is high-tech. I just want to note, for the record, that road maintenance, trucking, and catering won't bring you very much beyond $25,000 to $30,000 a year. So if our intent is to bring everyone to the same level, with the same opportunities, and to recognize these communities as possible partners, but also as possible competitors... they have the right to develop mines and benefit, because the whole idea here is to give them the tools to create wealth for themselves so that they can survive.

It's not fair to assume that they don't know how. Had we been asked the profession of the witness before this one, our prejudices probably would have had us say that she was a housewife—our prejudices. This great woman is a chartered accountant. That's quite an achievement. I wouldn't be able to do it. I wouldn't be able to accomplish that. It's always an attitude, and I feel better after your response.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Scott, go ahead, please.

Mr. Mike Scott: I'd ask Mr. Livingstone to respond to this, but the one thing that Mr. Bonin has completely ignored is the fact that the people Mr. Livingstone represents are people who have invested literally hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration and mine development.

Right now any British Columbian can go stake a claim. You don't have to be a mining company. Any individual or any organization—or any aboriginal band, for that matter—can go stake a mining claim and develop that mineral deposit if one is found. Anybody can engage in exploration. The key is that there are people in the mining industry who are willing to risk hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration and then, once mineral deposits are found, risk further money, further capital, in developing those deposits.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I know about mining.

• 1145

Mr. Mike Scott: Right. But it's a little bit naive to say you want to see a particular result come about without recognizing how that result is actually achieved. That result is achieved by people who are willing to risk literally hundreds of millions of dollars in exploration and development to see that come about.

I would just like Mr. Livingstone to respond to that. Mr. Livingstone, maybe you could give us some idea of how much investment the mining community has made in British Columbia and who the owners of these companies are. As I understand it, most of them are widely held public companies that raise money on the stock market by encouraging people to take risks with their investment.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: I just want to make a comment on what the previous speaker was asking me about.

The reference I had in my paper was to companies and the entrepreneurial spirit that has been taking place at that mine. The catering service is a separate company that the Tahltans have set up. These people work in the mines.

I haven't visited the operations you referred to, but I can assure you that $25,000 or $30,000 is... The average salary and benefit in B.C.'s mining industry is just under $80,000. It was $78,000 last year. The people at this mine are above that.

I can assure you the Tahltans are doing much better than that, because first of all they're working in the mine and secondly they are being involved in providing services through setting up companies. My point was that there's an entrepreneurial spirit here that the company is encouraging them to set up their own businesses, which I think is a very positive thing.

Mr. John O'Reilly: How can you answer a question when the person who asks the question leaves?

An hon. member: They can read it on the blues.

The Chair: Mr. Livingstone, you have two more minutes if you wish to go on.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: I think the question was with respect to the amount of investment. There's been literally billions of dollars invested in the mining industry in British Columbia. The owners of the companies I represent, companies like Placer Dome, Teck, Cominco, Fording Coal, Homestake, are listed on many exchanges throughout North America.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Scott still has time, but he's not here. Let's go to Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Scott can always read my comments on this, since he is not here. However, I would have liked him to hear me say personally that like him, I have a lot of admiration for people who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in mineral research and exploration. That is your case, and I know that it is one of the most important sectors.

However, contrary to Mr. Scott, I think we must also recognize that before you, there were people who were living there. That is at the heart of the current problem. Courts and governments recognize that they were here before us, that they were the first people here. So we cannot simply take over all of the wealth, and take them into account after the fact. I have seen that happen. On Nisga'a, Chilcotin and Carrier-Sekani lands, I have seen streams of trucks empty the forest of its resources prior to the signing of self-government and land claims agreements.

I have a lot of respect for you, and I have even more when you recognize that there are people who were here before you, that agreements must be reached to solve the problem and that we have to strive to do so.

I feel for you, Mr. Livingstone, because you are torn between two positions this morning: one that is in favour of the Aboriginals and the other that is against them. I do not want to get you mixed up in that debate, I just wanted to point it out for the record and so that Mr. Scott could read the blues in the near future.

I'd like to go back to the climate of uncertainty that you mentioned. I did not have time to address it with you in my previous question, but it is a very important point. I had the pleasure and the honour of meeting Mike Harcourt when we went to British Columbia. Mr. Harcourt had stated at the time that, in the case of British Columbia land claims, he felt and wanted his government, the government of British Columbia, not to yield more than 5% of the land.

• 1150

That, to me, eliminates a large part of the uncertainty. If that decision were enforced—we know that the Nisga'a obtained roughly 8% of their land claims—it would mean that 95% of Crown lands remain available to you for mineral exploration and development.

Could you tell me what you think about that? Are you not exaggerating in saying that it has led to a lot of uncertainty? I agree that you did not say so in so many words. Moreover, I want to reiterate that I appreciated your brief and find it important. You did not express opposition from the outset. On the contrary, you stated that the solution revolved around the conclusion of agreements like that.

But if these agreements are to apply to only 5% of the land, does that not eliminate the uncertainty as regards mineral exploration and development?

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, please.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: Yes, I agree. With the 5% settlement lands in the province there would be a high degree of certainty, because you would know who the owner was in that particular area.

The concern I'm drawn to, though, is the area outside of the settlement lands, being able to ensure certainty there that the provincial government or the federal government has the authority to manage resource development. That was the point I was raising.

We believe that this certainty is important not only to non-native citizens of British Columbia, but also to native citizens. They're the ones who are going to reap the majority of the benefits, because these operations are going to be in their areas, and their opportunities for employment and participation in the development of these mines is going to be greater than others'. So that's why we focused on that particular point.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Do I have any time left?

[English]

The Chair: You have thirty seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: If I understand correctly, Mr. Livingstone, you do not have a problem with category A land. The uncertainty arises with the surrounding land, which will include an area to be set aside for traditional hunting and fishing. That is not category A land at all. It is the surrounding land, the wildlife management areas, that are concerning you.

[English]

Mr. Gary Livingstone: That is right. And it's not the hunting or any of those aspects that concern us; we are just concerned about the language in those areas, in the Nass wildlife area. We believe it's ambiguous and we are concerned that it could create problems for access and development in those areas.

Our industry does not have a big impact, as was pointed out earlier, on wildlife, hunting, fishing, or any of those activities, but there is that concern that the language could be used to discourage exploration and development from taking place.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Our final round will go to Mr. Keddy. Go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to engage and maybe enlarge upon the discussion, which we have had before. I'd like to thank Mr. Livingstone for appearing here today, because I think the principles behind this treaty can never be discussed enough. There's a lot of uncertainty among many people and a lot of misinformation that has been espoused by different groups, so the more and the better we understand this, the better it is for everybody involved.

I'm the Conservative critic for natural resources, so I've certainly tried to look at this treaty and how it affects mining in British Columbia and Canada as a whole, and whether it's a precedent that's in any way detrimental to mining. But understand—and I want to make a point here—that mining deals with third-party negotiations all the time, whether that third party is the federal, municipal, or provincial government, or whether that third party happens to be a landowner.

• 1155

I just want to comment on Mr. Scott's statement, which shows a serious lack of understanding of how the mining operations work. Not anyone can stake a claim anywhere in Canada. It's important for anyone listening to this committee to understand that. There are large portions of the country that are off-limits. There are already third-party rules and regulations covering protected areas and provincial parks. I was surprised to hear you say there was a mine inside a provincial park, because certainly that's something we need to look at if we run out of minerals in this country, as long as it doesn't affect the dynamics of that area. And there are municipal bylaws affecting noise, dust, dirt, explosives—all kinds of things that affect mining in this country. So already there are a number of areas that seriously curtail mining.

The mining industry, your industry, is very used to working with third parties. In this case, the Nisga'a are not the third party. The third party in the wildlife area, as I understand it—and I want to get back to this—really will be the government. The final say remains in the government's hands. Now, I'm never sure or certain that governments are friendly to mining at any time, but certainly they will have the final say.

We've already discussed the part that I believe protects mining operations, but if you go further into the wildlife committee, in no place in that section on page 140, paragraph 45—and it goes through subparagraphs (a) to (l)—does it give the Nisga'a any rights beyond an advisory capacity or a recommendation. They can make recommendations to the minister because of that joint jurisdiction, but they really have... I think the strongest language is in subparagraph (h):

...advising the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government on wildlife management policies, projects, plans and programs that significantly affect the Nass Wildlife Area and its wildlife populations...

So if there's a significant effect on wildlife, they may have more ability to affect the minister's decision, but fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, the government of the day will have the final say.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: I would hope you're right, but if you look at page 145, under subparagraph 65(a), it says:

The Minister, on a timely basis and in a manner consistent with this Agreement, will:

a. approve or reject, in whole or in part, all recommendations, other than recommendations in respect of an annual management plan

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What paragraph was that again?

Mr. Gary Livingstone: Subparagraph 65(a).

He cannot reject or approve an annual management plan in whole or in part, “other than”. That is going to be there.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: But that's the cut and thrust, right? He can't reject an annual plan, but previous to that it also says an annual management plan has to take into consideration other activities that are occurring.

Mr. Gary Livingstone: Right, I guess. But again, it's tough to... From our point view, I guess there seems to be enough ambiguity that it creates this uncertainty. All we're suggesting is that if language could be put in place such that there would be more certainty with respect to these areas outside of the settlement lands, we think that would provide more security to investors who would be going into those areas.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I appreciate that, but I still read the language as being nothing stronger than to force two parties to reach agreement on some items, all right? Really, it doesn't give the Nisga'a significant rights in the management area over and above being a third party that has rights that need to be represented. That's part of the negotiation process that we deal with every day.

The Chair: Mr. Livingstone, it remains for me to thank you for your testimony on behalf of all members of the committee. I know you stayed behind a little longer in your schedule so that you could accommodate our need to hear from you today. We appreciate that, and like all the rest of the 65 or so witnesses we've heard from, we certainly appreciate your input into our decision-making.

• 1200

This committee will adjourn for now and commence again at 3:30 this afternoon. We are adjourned.