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]

Monday, November 15, 1999

• 1342

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We apologize for being late. I think the people in this region know much more about the conditions of the weather. We tried last night to get in and this morning to get in, so consequently now we will be doing meeting number five, which was scheduled for this morning at 9.30 a.m. We will have four out of the five witnesses who were scheduled for this morning first of all. The fifth witness will be tabling a report that, when we receive it, we'll have circulated around to all the members.

I want to welcome everyone. We're going to start with what was actually scheduled for this morning's meeting, and then after we've concluded the witnesses from this morning, we will break and then go into the witnesses, the panel for this afternoon.

We've had many people requesting to welcome us. Amongst them was the Tsimshian Tribal Council, who offered a welcoming ceremony. It is the decision of the chair that to be consistent we will just go into our regular business, but we certainly thank the Tsimshian for that kind offer.

Because this is our first hearing on this road trip into B.C., perhaps I can ask the members present right now—and there will be some others joining us as they arrive—to introduce themselves.

I'm Sue Barnes. I'm chair of the committee. Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is David Iftody. I'm the member of Parliament for Provencher in Manitoba, and I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I'm pleased to be here as well. Thank you.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): My name is Nancy Karetak-Lindell. I'm the member of Parliament for Nunavut, which is the newest territory for Canada, and I'm very pleased to be here also.

• 1345

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Hi, I'm Ray Bonin, the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt, which is around the city of Sudbury in northern Ontario. I'm pleased to be here.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): My name is John O'Reilly. I'm the member of Parliament for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. One bad day in B.C. is better than four good days in Ottawa. It's good to be back in B.C.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): I'm Mike Scott, member of Parliament for Skeena, which is this riding we're in today. I'm very pleased to have the standing committee here, and I look forward to what the witnesses are going to have to say here today.

I'd like to welcome the committee here and everybody else who's in attendance today. I hope the meeting we'll have here today will be very constructive.

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): I'm Jim Gouk, the member of Parliament for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, in the other corner of B.C., and the only place that has an airport with higher limits than Terrace.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): I'm Cliff Breitkreuz, the member of Parliament for Yellowhead in west central Alberta. I'm pleased to be here.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): I'm Ghislain Fournier, the Member for Manicouagan, a riding located on Quebec's North Shore.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I'm Claude Bachand, the Member for Saint-Jean and aboriginal affairs critic. Saint-Jean is located 25 miles south of Montreal.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I'm Daniel Turp and I represent the federal riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[English]

I'm also the intergovernmental affairs spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I'm Louise Hardy, member of Parliament for the Yukon, and I'm very pleased to be here as well.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'm Gerald Keddy, the member of Parliament for South Shore. We came on Saturday, so we missed the fog.

The Chair: Our researchers are to my right and our two clerks are to my left, and if anybody needs assistance, the clerks will assist them.

I'd like to clarify some procedure. It's normal for there only to be two members of the Bloc Québécois present. We have three, but one would have to sign in and the other not question. That's just to clarify. But they are sitting members of Parliament, and they're allowed at the table. Any party can substitute another member in as long as they remove a member, so we have a procedure for that.

Mr. Finlay, would you like to introduce yourself?

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm John Finlay from Oxford. I'm the vice-chair of the committee and a Liberal member from Oxford County in southwestern Ontario.

The Chair: I neglected to say I'm also from southwestern Ontario.

Now we will go to the order of the day, Bill C-9, an act to give effect to the Nisga'a Final Agreement. We will take two presentations. Our presentations are limited to 10 minutes or less, as the presenter wishes, and then there will be questioning in five-minute rounds. We have a rotation.

Mr. Barton, you're welcome to give your presentation. Go ahead.

Mr. Frank Barton (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I would like to welcome the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development here in Terrace. I am glad to see you're starting this meeting in the old Nisga'a tradition. We call it Indian time.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Frank Barton: Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Frank Barton. I am a Nisga'a. Specifically, I am a...

[Witness speaks in his native language]

The translation to that is that I am a member of the Kincolith Band.

I was born in Kincolith, I was raised in Prince Rupert, and I live now in Richmond, B.C. My Indian name is Lubytgigokwx. I am fourth in line for the hereditary name of Simogit daaxhan.

• 1350

My tribe or house is the house of Gisk'aast. In Nisga'a law, Simogit daaxhan is the ruler over the tribal lands of the house of Gisk'aast. His word is law. No one can set foot on those lands without his permission. No one can fish, hunt or gather from those lands without his permission. No chief from another tribe can negotiate a treaty for the lands of the house of Gisk'aast. That is the responsibility of Simogit daaxhan.

In July 1998 Simogit daaxhan is on record in a report written in the Vancouver Sun that he will tear up the treaty. Certainly...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

...the board of the Nisga'a Tribal Council does not have the authority from Simogit daaxhan to sign a treaty that removes the lands of the house of Gisk'aast from the tribe.

The tribe exists only because it has the land. The tribe ceases to exist when it has no land. Simogit daaxhan will cease to exist when he loses that land. This is why Simogit daaxhan started the land question when he and the Killer Whale Tribe of the house of Gisk'aast were removed from those lands and placed on a reserve 130 years ago.

The land of the house of Gisk'aast is the homeland of the Killer Whale Tribe. I am a member of that Killer Whale Tribe. Without those lands, we will no longer exist and we will have no more homeland.

I ask all of you in this room, “Where did you come from?” All of you have a homeland. The English have England, the French have France, the Irish have Ireland, the East Indians have India. Although you call yourself Canadians, you are proud of your nationality and where you come from. If all else fails here in Canada, you could always return to your homeland.

When the Nisga'a treaty is ratified, the Kincolith will no longer have a homeland they can call their home. On the map you see there, practically all of the white with the dots on it—the dots show the reserves of the Kincolith—has been excluded in the treaty. What you see there in the land mass with all those dots belongs to the Kincolith.

Somebody calls the green area Cranky Eagle. On the small piece of land left at the bottom of the green map, you will see the name Kincolith. There is not enough to sustain the Kincolith in the future.

Dale Lovick, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in B.C., once stated in public, “We have divided Nisga'a lands equally”. That statement was deceitful to the public of Canada. That statement was designed to indicate to the public that the treaty treats all Indians fairly.

• 1355

This treaty is not fair to the 1,700 band members of the Kincolith Band, because no one can change those boundaries, which are known as the traditional territories. Those lands were established through war. The tribes fought for those lands and they fought to protect them. Unless there is another war between the tribes, those boundaries will never be changed.

Because the Kincolith will lose 90% of their lands, they have done two things. First, on May 12, 1997, the Kincolith Band passed a resolution to remove themselves from the Nisga'a treaty. They also declared in that resolution their independence from the Nisga'a Tribal Council.

On April 14, 1998, the hereditary chiefs and matriarchs of the Kincolith Band signed a proclamation, under the Supreme Court ruling in Delgamuukw, that they would be the negotiators of any treaty concerning the lands of the Kincolith. However, on June 6, 1997, there was another Kincolith Band resolution that rescinded the May 12 Kincolith Band resolution.

I have filed with the RCMP in Canada, in Prince Rupert, a claim of fraud against the June 6, 1997, resolution. The fraud involves what is known as the general executive council members that belong to the Kincolith band council. That band council wears two caps. They do not distinguish between which meeting they're in. They do not represent the Kincolith people when they are at the Nisga'a Tribal Council meeting known as the general executive council meeting.

That resolution was signed by six individuals in the band council. We have the documentation. We have the proof. We have the videotapes that show that that resolution was signed at a general executive council meeting held in Kincolith on June 6, 1997.

We have spent two years trying to solve those problems, those breaches of trust, abuses of power, and conflicts of interest, involving the Nisga'a Tribal Council with respect to the Kincolith lands you see on that map.

People would like to say the Nisga'a Tribal Council has the authority to negotiate land claims on behalf of the Nisga'a and the Kincolith Band. I have here a resolution that outlines the 1913 petition boundaries in the Calder case from the Supreme Court of Canada, which included all those lands on that map that are white. This resolution is directed to the Nisga'a central government and the negotiating team. It says “Do not accept the Cranky Eagle offer from the province, effective immediately”. This was passed at a Nisga'a Tribal Council convention or a Nisga'a Nation convention on April 25, 1995.

• 1400

The rules written in this book state that their negotiations pertain to three parties. If a resolution separates us, you must tell the other two. The Nisga'a negotiating team—and that Nisga'a negotiating team includes four lawyers who claim that they represent my rights, Nisga'a rights, Kincolith rights—breached this resolution when the rights to the land...and the land question that was started by my great-great-grandfather more than 130 years ago.

This resolution even shows the breaches of trust involving the negotiators of the Nisga'a Tribal Council. In their discussion on the floor of that convention, what they said is written here. I'll read some of it; you will have copies of this. Copies of this are sitting in Ottawa right now. The resolution exists in the offices of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Strathcona Park, the British Columbia government, the British Columbia Treaty Commission, and the Registrar of Companies here in Canada. No one made an effort to stop it.

I might add right now that the Nisga'a Tribal Council is a registered society in British Columbia and is incorporated in British Columbia as a corporation. The definition of an Indian in the Indian Act is, with respect to a corporation, that it is not an Indian under the Indian Act—

The Chair: Mr. Barton, you're over ten minutes now.

Mr. Frank Barton: I have one more statement. I ask you, what are three white guys doing negotiating a treaty without the Indians?

The Chair: Mr. Barton, any document that you wish to table with the clerk would be copied and circulated to all the members, if you wish.

Mr. Frank Barton: Yes. In fact you can take all of these, because I will be meeting you again in Vancouver with more of the documents.

The Chair: Is that everything, Mr. Barton? Are you finished?

Mr. Frank Barton: Yes. You've cut me off, haven't you?

The Chair: Well, the time limit is there and you've gone a bit beyond it, but is there any concluding statement right now?

Mr. Frank Barton: No, not right now.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Young, please commence.

Mr. Bill Young (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee, media, ladies and gentlemen.

My wife Norma and I and our company have registered fee simple title to 160 acres of land in this beautiful Nass Valley. The Nisga'a land claim completely surrounds our property; it is located 10 kilometres east of Gitlakdamiks and is shown on the provincial road map as Nass Camp, British Columbia.

• 1405

We operate a town site as Tilicum Lodge. It's the only full facility available in the valley. About 25 to 30 people are employed seasonally. We have row houses rented to native and non-native families.

Excuse me, I must rephrase this. It sounds as if I mean “we” and “they”. We have many families coexisting in harmony, and if we continue a “we” and “they” scenario, it will always open the door to conflict and discrimination. We are and should be proud to be Canadians living together in this great country of Canada.

When the land claims heated up, we, like other property owners, had concerns as to our future existence in the Nass Valley. My main sources of worry were threefold: first, what happens to private land holdings; second, concern over access to our properties; and third, who will have the power to levy taxes on our lands?

Any fears we have had are alleviated and clearly defined in the treaty documents. Refer to the “Lands” chapter, paragraph 1, page 31. It states that Nisga'a self-government will not have any jurisdiction over land currently owned by non-Nisga'a within the Nass Valley. All of the fee simple properties are expressly excluded from the Nisga'a land claims, and the residents of private parcels will continue to have the right to vote for federal, provincial, and regional governments.

We already have representation on school district 92 Nisga'a and on the Nisga'a Valley Health Board. Mission statements and the constitution have entrenched that there will always be one elected representative from each of the four villages and one from Nass Camp, which includes other residents of the Nass living off reserve. These rights are defined in the “Nisga'a Government” chapter, paragraphs 19 to 22, pages 163 and 164.

We do have a vote, for what good it has done us. Despite numerous requests, our elected member has never bothered to contact, visit, or spend any time in our area since before the last election, when he was soliciting votes.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Bill Young: As a matter of fact, he stated publicly that he does not represent the Nisga'a. Who does represent the Nisga'a in Parliament? We non-Nisga'a residents are also deprived of proper representation.

For the last nine years I have had the honour and privilege of being elected to the Nisga'a Valley Health Board, an institution named after James Samuel Gosnell, a man who dedicated his life and energies to settling the land claims issues. This facility is staffed by a dedicated, courteous, and professional medical team. It does not discriminate because of race, colour, or creed. No one is denied the finest professional treatment the doctors and equipment can provide. Many tourists and visitors make use of it and compliment on the excellent services provided.

We residents of the Nass give thanks to both levels of government and the Nisga'a, for without this help we would not have the availability of any medical care. We'd have to travel 120 kilometres to the already overtaxed hospital and facilities in Terrace.

Two, the access to our properties is guaranteed by the laws of British Columbia and the provincial highways authority.

Third, concern regarding taxation is addressed in the “Taxation” chapter, paragraph 1, page 217, which says our taxes will be levied and paid to the provincial Government of British Columbia.

In conclusion, I wish to thank and recognize the hard work and dedication of the negotiating teams who have spent many years of frustrating rejection. The Nisga'a have negotiated themselves into being a permanent part of Canada, paying taxes, and no longer being wards of the government.

The Nisga'a treaty is a fair and honourable solution that will protect and be fair to all parties. It will carry with it pride and self-reliance for the Nisga'a Nation and be an example to the rest of Canada.

I ask the honourable members of Parliament to ratify this treaty so that we can enter the next millennium as proud and united Canadians. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Young.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Scott will have the first five-minute round.

Mr. Mike Scott: I have one question for Mr. Barton and one question for Mr. Young. I'll start with Mr. Young.

I want to be clear, Mr. Young, that there is an association of landowners of private land in the Nass Valley called the Nass Valley Residents Association. It's on the record that you are not representing them today; is that correct?

Mr. Bill Young: I am not representing them today, although I am a member of the group.

Mr. Mike Scott: Right, but you are representing yourself and yourself only today?

• 1410

Mr. Bill Young: I am speaking for myself. People were asking me what I thought of the land claims issue. The thoughts are coming from my heart.

Mr. Mike Scott: Okay, very good. Now I have a question for Mr. Barton.

Mr. Barton, I know you have expressed concerns in the past over the ratification process that was used by Nisga'a government at the time this treaty was ratified by the Nisga'a people. Could you elaborate a little bit on what your concerns were with that ratification process, please?

Mr. Frank Barton: In this book here, in the ratification procedure in the very back, it states: “preparing and publishing an official voters list at least 14 days before the first day of general voting in the referendum”.

We have never seen a voters list. We have been in contact with the aboriginal affairs minister in B.C., Dale Lovick. His answer to that—or his office's answer; we didn't talk directly with him—is that there is no voters list. Basically he didn't have one. But then he started quoting percentages, how many votes were yes and how many votes were no.

Two votes were carried out that day. When we went into the poll, they gave us a piece of paper. We were to answer two questions. For example, if a hundred people went into that room and voted, there would be a hundred votes cast. As it turned out, there were fewer votes cast for the constitution. That differed from the results of the vote that was cast for the vote.

We have been signing and filling out what they call the Nisga'a ratification and application form in order to vote. In this book, it says the Nisga'a Ratification Committee is made up of the Nisga'a Tribal Council, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and representatives from the B.C. government.

Just because we're Indian, what kinds of laws will we be working with here? We have the Department of Indian Affairs keeping their hands in the whole process and never letting go. We do not have any rules.

When the ballot boxes were finished and the polls were closed, they should have locked the doors, counted the ballots, and announced the results. What did they do? They took those ballot boxes from wherever the votes were—from Terrace, from Prince Rupert, from the Fraser Valley, from Vancouver—put them in the trunk of a car and drove them through the bushes to New Aiyansh.

I understand the vote was delayed for one more day. I was contacted by Harvey Overfeldt, who asked me what the problem was. I couldn't explain it. The rumour we had was that some ballot boxes were riding around in somebody's trunk here in Terrace.

I'm sure you people would not accept the results of that vote, when the boxes are not being handled properly and we don't know if the same boxes arrived in Terrace as the ones that left Vancouver.

We were in contact with Gordon Wilson while he was PDA, and he said he would bring it up on the floor of the House in the legislature in Victoria. When he made his speech, he did mention Kincolith and her rights on her land, but he didn't say anything else. We were asking him too, when he became the aboriginal affairs minister, if he had a voters list.

The ratification in this book has now been nullified. It has never been followed. When we went to court on the ratification procedure on the agreement in principle... There's a phrase in here that goes something like “This agreement does not create legally binding obligations on the parties”.

• 1415

Tom Berger, in that courthouse in Kamloops, read that out for the judge, and he said that this agreement does not create legally binding obligations on the parties, so Gosnell did not have to follow the procedures written in this book.

That's deceit and it is fraud to write this book and then tell the Nisga'a Nation that it is legally binding. The lawyer, Jim Aldridge, in his overview of the AIP on February 22 at the special assembly, stated that after the preamble this book has legal effect.

The Chair: You're two minutes over right now, Mr. Barton.

Mr. Frank Barton: Then when we went to court there was a different definition for that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Five minutes, Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I believe you mean Mr. Bachand.

The Chair: I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Let me start by saying how much I enjoyed your presentation, Mr. Young. I think we're both in the same boat. I consider myself to be a friend of the Nisga'a. I've twice travelled to Nisga'a territory since being elected to Parliament and I've only encountered friends, not only Nisga'as, but people like yourself. Last time, I met with an Anglican minister. People were delighted to see this kind of agreement reached because it resolved many problems.

I'd like to ask Mr. Barton a few questions because he's the first Nisga'a I've met who has spoken out against the agreement. I hadn't encountered any opposition until now and I'm a little curious.

First of all, Mr. Barton, did you vote in the referendum on the Nisga'a agreement?

[English]

Mr. Fred Barton: Can I have a translation on that, please? I can't wear these.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Did you vote at the last referendum concerning this treaty when it was accepted by 61% of the people?

Mr. Fred Barton: Yes, I did, but I don't know what happened to the vote. I received a letter after the vote indicating that my application form to be a voter was not complete because I didn't send in my driver's licence, marriage certificate, or whatever documentation they required.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Can I continue?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I suppose I'll have to pursue this in English?

The Chair: Mr. Barton has a hearing issue and it is difficult, so I would ask that you continue in English.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'll continue in English.

I've heard you well on the negotiation process, and I wanted to tell you that this process—and you said it earlier also—lasted over 100 years, and particularly in the last 20 years there were very intensive negotiations. Of course, out of the 100% of the land claims you were claiming, I think only 8% were conceded in the treaty. I've made some negotiations during the past 20 years, and of course when you have a starting position it has to be flexible and you have to arrive somewhere. Personally, I think there were some very interesting matters that were treated in the treaty, such as fisheries, logging, and things like that, that brought a compromise for the representatives of your people.

I have a hard time also with the certainty, because I came here and went to the Carrier Sekani and the Chilcotin, and I was seeing all this logging, all these trees being cut and brought out of the territory. This was an urgent matter to settle. So I have a hard time understanding why a Nisga'a like you would not be respectful of 61% of the people who said yes and would not be respectful of negotiations that lasted over 100 years.

I'd like you to reply to that.

• 1420

The Chair: Mr. Barton.

Mr. Frank Barton: There was an agreement, a resolution involving the rights of the Nisga'a Tribal Council to negotiate land claims.

When I was finishing my presentation, I was showing you the land quantum resolution. That was directed to the Nisga'a negotiating team from the Nisga'a Nation: do not accept Cranky Eagle. That's the green you see on the map. The white is the land they were telling them to negotiate for.

I might tell you that the Nisga'a Tribal Council is a registered society, registered in Victoria. It is non-Indian at that point, and in order for them to negotiate on behalf of the Nisga'a or Indians or the Kincolith, they must abide by that resolution. They broke it. When they broke that resolution, they broke their mandate to negotiate land claims on behalf of the Gitkincolith. Those are the rules, those are the laws. It doesn't matter whether it's been going on for 130 years or more. When you get down to the point where we are willing to stand side by side, all of us—and by all of us, I mean all the houses, all the tribes, all the chiefs—they will have to come to an agreement amongst themselves on how much land is to be given up and whose land is given up.

What I've been showing you today is what you see on that map. Most of the white on that side—I'll get up and I'll show you where it is—

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

Mr. Frank Barton: All of that belongs to the Kincolith Band. And if you say there's a process—

The Chair: Mr. Barton.

Mr. Frank Barton: Listen—

The Chair: Mr. Barton, we are going on with our time schedule.

Ms. Hardy, it is your turn.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Frank Barton: —

The Chair: Mr. Barton, thank you.

The members are knowledgeable on this, but because of all of the witnesses—and we are trying to make sure that everybody who has tried to show as a witness today gets on—the five minutes is five minutes inclusive of question and answer, which requires short questions and short answers. The next person on, if they wish to follow up the point, can clarify if they wish or they may go on in another direction. And this is for everybody. It's not just for you, Mr. Barton. That's just the way the committee does operate, to make sure we hear as many people as possible.

Ms. Hardy. Go ahead, five minutes.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Barton, I'd like to thank you for coming to act as a witness, and I was wondering if there's any part of the Nisga'a treaty that you see as acceptable, because up to now I've only heard what you don't like.

Mr. Frank Barton: There are laws in this country, laws of negotiations—laws, Nisga'a law. Nisga'a laws were broken. It's not whether I accept them or reject them; they are the laws I have to live by. There are laws in Canada. There are laws in B.C. There's the society... They are all broken. If you want to to be a law-abiding citizen, you must abide by the laws, particularly in negotiations.

The Indian Act must not be applied to the negotiation process, and the Department of Indian Affairs has never removed the chain from that. That I find unacceptable. The fact that those laws are broken is why we lost so much land in Kincolith. I call it a modern-day robbery of land from the Kincolith people. That is what I'm trying to say. Our land is out there in the white. I stated earlier that I'm losing my homeland. I don't have a home. Although I'm a Canadian, I still have to call someplace my home.

• 1425

I am a Killer Whale. If you don't understand what that is, I am descended from my great-great-great-grandmother. All the Killer Whales are. If you took a DNA test on all of us, you would find we all carry the same genes.

Those are the lands I am fighting for. I'm doing it because my aunt has asked me to. My aunt is the matriarch of the tribe, which is like the Queen of England. Her word is law. That's why I am here.

The Chair: Ms. Hardy, do you need more time? No?

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have a couple of questions here. Because of time restraints, I'm going to go to Mr. Young first and then I'll finish up with Mr. Barton.

Specifically, taxation is a issue that's been discussed and represented—and maybe in some instances misrepresented—in terms of this treaty. As a non-Nisga'a surrounded by Nisga'a lands, I listened very intently to your discussion on taxation. Because you're a non-Nisga'a living within Nisga'a lands, if this treaty goes through, your tax base will be based on British Columbian tax.

Is that right? You'll be taxed directly to the province?

Mr. Bill Young: The same as it is today.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So there's no municipal region or township or city-based region of tax?

Mr. Bill Young: Our taxes are levied by the B.C. tax assessors, and our tax is paid to the British Columbia government.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

I ask that question—and you made it very clear, but I don't think it can be made clear enough—because part of the opposition to this treaty has been based on the fact that there's taxation without representation. But what's going on is patently different from that. There's no taxation without representation.

Am I correct?

Mr. Bill Young: Well, there shouldn't be.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm satisfied with your answer, but I think it has to be nailed down very clearly. If people who have been opposed to this treaty and to the process of this treaty are stating myths about taxation, then that's something that needs to be cleared up at the beginning, not at the end. I think you've done a good job of that, and I thank you for your answers.

I have one quick question for Mr. Barton.

You had stated that you're currently in the midst of a legal battle, or you've taken the treaty organization to court.

Mr. Frank Barton: There's a complaint of fraud being investigated at the moment. It involves a band council resolution rescinded at the wrong meeting.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Right.

I ask that because there is a process for your opinions to be heard, and you've started that process in place. I would assume, given the laws of the country, and if you're correct in your assumptions, that the treaty process could essentially be thrown out. If you're incorrect, that will also be proven.

It's difficult for us as parliamentarians to make a decision as to whether there's ballot box fraud or whether there's not. It's really not anything we can deal with. If you've already started the process, then you can be in opposition to the treaty, but it's difficult for us to see where you're coming from on a discussion of fraud that's already before the courts.

The Chair: Mr. Barton, a short answer.

Mr. Frank Barton: Here is a list of letters, starting with the Attorney General of Canada; Solicitor General Herb Gray; the Honourable Ron Irwin and John Cashore, the aboriginal affairs ministers; and then Mike Scott. They didn't respond to us.

• 1430

Sure there's a process. I tried to get in there; they just wouldn't respond. I went to the Nisga'a Tribal Council first, at the special assembly. They wouldn't address the land quantum resolution that I have just handed in. They broke that resolution; therefore, they changed the map. That's right.

When we finished with all the politicians in Canada and B.C., we went to the British Columbia Treaty Commission. They said “It's not our mandate.” The breach of trust—seven violations of the Societies Act and one violation of our own law—we took to the registrar of companies in Victoria. Again, he brushed us off. In the Societies Act, there is a rule that if the registrar of companies is not going to do his job, we go to court and make him pay for it—if we win that court. That's where we went. But we didn't go to criminal law. I was a dummy at that time. I didn't know my way around what was going on out here; I was following a paper trail left behind by the Nisga'a Tribal Council.

None of those documents are mine. I just bring them to you so you can judge for yourself where the breach of trust lies.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, your time is up.

Mr. Frank Barton: Now we get to this stage: tell me, what is the process I should have followed?

The Chair: Thank you.

Our last questioner in this round before we go on to the next witnesses is Mr. Iftody.

Five minutes, please.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Barton, for your presentation.

If I may, I want to pick up on the line of questioning by Mr. Keddy of the Conservative Party. It deals with your legal dispute with the Nisga'a Tribal Council. I am aware of the facts of the case and the process that led up to your submissions. In particular, I was interested in your comments about the Kamloops outcome, in the B.C. Supreme Court decision, where you made reference to Mr. Berger and Mr. Aldridge.

If I understand the facts correctly, after 1996 and the filing of the agreement in principle, you were unhappy with this and you made those facts known here quite clearly. You filed an application with the lower courts in British Columbia to file an injunction against the deal; you said it was illegal. The lower court ruled against you, finding that there was no evidence at all that the Nisga'a Tribal Council had acted improperly.

You were dissatisfied with that outcome and of course you sought leave to appeal. You went to the British Columbia Supreme Court, in a case which was heard in Kamloops. I have some concluding statements from the judges. Justice Goldie, in the final ruling, ruled against you, and said on page 10, in paragraphs 24 and 25, that “The application for leave to appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the applicants' rights of discovery...”.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the application for the interim injunction was dismissed, he said, as the applicant—you—“failed to persuade me the trial judge exercised his discretion in any way that would require a division of this Court to interfere”.

In other words, the superior court agreed with the lower court that there was no impropriety, no facts of fraud or interference or wrongdoing at all. Both levels of court found that. In fact, they felt the application was a rather frivolous one and asked you to pay the court costs—even those of the Nisga'a, which were awarded to them.

I guess my question to you is this. Having gone through this legal process, you talked about being a Canadian citizen, which indeed you are, and going through those due processes, which it is your right to do... But the courts have found against you at two levels. Don't you feel, now that you've had an opportunity to exercise what your legitimate concerns... It seems to me that fighting these issues in the courts and other places is not where your dispute is. Your dispute is with your own band council and your community.

• 1435

If you seek that kind of support to make the changes that you want in your life, sir, or for your community—and I believe you have heartfelt interests here—you should be running in your community to seek support for the changes you are after, not coming to this committee or going to the lower or appeal courts in British Columbia.

Now that you've lost on two occasions...you're taking your fight to the wrong place. How do you respond to that?

The Chair: Mr. Barton.

Mr. Frank Barton: You're right, we did go to the wrong place. If my lawyer had been up to snuff he would have told me that it was out of his area and that I should have gone to a criminal lawyer, to criminal court, on this matter, because Judge Hunter, in his ruling against the injunction against the signing of the final agreement, agreed with the affidavit of Joe Goosnell that it was an oversight on his part, that he did not include in the notice of a special assembly that he was going to ratify it. Read it and judge for yourself.

Judge Hunter did not rule against the land quantum resolution and he didn't rule against the aspects of the notice. In the Societies Act, it says you must give the members a 14-day written notice. In this book, which you call the agreement in principle, it says that a special assembly must be called for “the purpose”. That is what we took to Judge Hunter. If he ruled against me, he's ruling against this book, because that special assembly was not called for “the purpose”.

Read the announcement. It states that this meeting is an information update and translation of the agreement in principle. There is another document in there from then Attorney General Allan Rock, and he agrees with us. That document was in our court case. Judge Hunter has ruled against the Attorney General of Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Iftody. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I want to thank all of the witnesses. We appreciate your time and your patience in waiting today.

I will now ask for the next set of witnesses, who have been waiting since this morning. We have with us Mayor Jack Talstra, City of Terrace, and from the Kitimat-Stikine regional district, Joanne Monaghan.

Please join us at the table.

Mr. Barton, if there are any documents, they can be deposited with the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: The witnesses have submitted two documents in English. Would it be possible for them to provide us with a translation as soon as possible?

[English]

The Chair: For the committee's edification, all the documents will be translated. They can be submitted in any official language and will go back to Ottawa to be translated into both official languages and circulated to those who need them.

• 1440

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. John O'Reilly: Madam Chair, on a point of order, is it the rule of this committee to have documents circulated that are not in both official languages?

The Chair: We did not make a special motion at the beginning of this on that point.

Mr. John O'Reilly: In fairness, I believe the documents shouldn't be circulated to the members unless they're in both official languages, but the people making presentations are quite within their rights to make their presentation. We have interpretation that we can follow, but I don't believe it's fair to either official language not to have the documents in their language.

The Chair: Your point is well taken. At this point in time, because I know it's so difficult, it's very unlikely that we will have translation during this week. We will then just hear the oral testimony and have the documents translated upon our return and circulated.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Madam Chair, on a point of order, perhaps it would be advisable in future to let those planning to make presentations know that they should do so in both official languages. I'm not saying that I don't wish to hear from Mr. Talstra, who represents one of the prettiest cities in British Columbia, but...

[English]

The Chair: In this circumstance, at this week's hearings, where witnesses were just confirmed as late as last Friday, I think that would be an unreasonable request of these people. But you know we have an ability in Ottawa to translate all documents, and that can be done. We are very grateful for this week's witnesses, who came together rapidly at our request. Thank you.

We will go with our witnesses now, and we will not have further motions or anything else. We are going with these witnesses, who started earlier today and wanted to... I understand they are under time constraints. So I'm going to thank them very much for coming earlier today and then coming back to accommodate our late arrival due to the weather.

Would our local mayor like to start us off here, or do you have a preference?

Mr. Jack Talstra (Mayor of Terrace): That's fine. Joanne usually gets to speak ahead of me, but this time it's different.

Thank you very much for inviting me to attend before you today. On behalf of city council and the people here, welcome to Terrace, population 12,600, and immediate area population 22,000, situated in the historic land of the Tsimshian and neighbour to the Nass Valley and its people, the Nisga'a.

I'd like to recognize especially our own member of Parliament, Mr. Mike Scott. We in Terrace appreciate the fact that he is a member of this committee. We feel that this allows us an extra voice into your deliberations, a representation that we hope conveys to you Terrace's general support in principle for this treaty and our desire to have it concluded.

That is not to say there are no concerns. There are, for us as a community and as citizens of Canada living here with our neighbours, and we trust Mr. Scott has brought forward those concerns as well. However, as a whole, we wish the treaty signed sooner rather than later so that we might focus our energy and creativity on implementation rather than past discussion and previous arguments.

In the landmark case of Delgamuukw, the Supreme Court of Canada said of all Canadians what we in Terrace have always known. The judges said in their conclusions, “Let's face it, we are all here to stay”—simple words with a profound meaning. The people of Terrace are never going to go away, and neither are the people of the Nass. Because of that simple but powerful fact, we seek a resolution of outstanding issues through a treaty process. Alternatives to treaties are simply unacceptable for those who live here, now and in the future.

• 1445

What, then, of the Nisga'a treaty? The primary concerns of the citizens of Terrace and area in regard to this treaty are: one, that there be certainty and finality; two, that the economic well-being of all their citizens, native and non-native, be advanced, and that the opportunities and tools for doing so remain in place; three, that the quality of our lifestyle continue to improve; and four, that the future of our children in this land remain secure.

Certainty and finality: We as local governments want treaty settlements to be certain and final, meaning that the final outcome of treaty negotiations will be a completion of the process of addressing outstanding first nation claims, and that in relation to the question of aboriginal right and title, the treaties will bring finality and certainty to the greatest extent possible, recognizing that self-government for aboriginals may be a dynamic, evolving form of government, as it is for local governments. This will enable all citizens of British Columbia to move toward economic, social, and community sustainability.

In my council's view, the Nisga'a Final Agreement substantially accords with municipal polices and principles regarding certainty. Its provisions for amendment and modification are designed to respond to changing circumstances and, when combined with the dispute resolution provisions, provide a relatively high degree of certainty.

However, there is no doubt that in the implementation of a treaty arising out of the NFA, the Nisga'a Final Agreement, there may be changes to its terms, by agreement or arising out of the dispute resolution processes set out in the NFA. This is, in our view, inevitable, having regard to the evolutionary nature of aboriginal self-government; the potential for future overlapping aboriginal claims; fiscal implementation of intergovernmental arrangements and changing circumstances; and future unforeseen circumstances, the precise nature of which could not be fully and comprehensibly articulated at the time of drafting.

The defining of section 35 rights and the release of Canada of undefined section 35 rights are the keystones for the certainty in the NFA. In our view, implementation uncertainties that are fully contemplated by the NFA are inherent and necessary to a flexible implementation of the terms and concepts underlying the NFA. It is in that sense that there remain some aspects of uncertainty and a lack of finality in the NFA.

The Nisga'a Final Agreement does not comply with UBCM's—I should mention here, Madam Chairman, that UBCM is the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, of which Terrace is a member—preferred model of surrender or partial surrender, because the NFA does not purport to extinguish aboriginal rights. However, the Nisga'a do release to Canada undefined section 35 rights not otherwise expressly set out in the NFA. The principles that guide certainty decisions in treaty negotiations, set out in the 1995 UBCM policy paper, are substantially met.

Economic concerns: The report by ARA Consulting Group for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs for British Columbia and for the Federal Treaty Negotiation Office for the Government of Canada, dated December 1995, states findings that we find to be the case in our area as well, and we take some comfort in general trends found in other jurisdictions after a treaty has been implemented. These include the following:

- controversy prior to and during the negotiation of the claim reduces during the implementation period;

- reactions towards settlements from the business community have become supportive as the reasons for and benefits of settlement become more known;

- settlements have not brought about any dramatic changes for the non-aboriginal community;

- clear rules and approval processes for investment or development need to be established to maximize certainty in the post-settlement environment;

- in many cases, settlement has led to a stronger partnership between aboriginal and non-aboriginal societies;

- aboriginal groups have entered a wide variety of business ventures and have sought business partnerships with the non-aboriginal community, which often feature provisions related to community development;

- capacity-building in education and training is needed to maximize benefits in a post-settlement environment; and

- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal societies are made more aware of each other's lifestyle and cultural values in the land claims process.

• 1450

We believe in the Nisga'a treaty, and we believe the focus should now be on implementation. It is essential to begin now to establish understanding for the future between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. The City of Terrace believes this can be developed through shared management of resources, increased commercial interaction in the business community through both private aboriginal investment and joint venture arrangements, and increased cultural understanding through communication during the negotiation process.

Social, cultural and lifestyle values: We all want a better lifestyle for ourselves and for our children. The City of Terrace believes the treaty process is one way to enhance our well-being, for the Nisga'a and for ourselves, for us now and for our children in the future.

Focus on implementation: As you know, the Nisga'a treaty negotiations were, in the beginning, extremely closed discussions involving the federal, provincial, and Nisga'a negotiating teams only. The people who lived here and the ones to be affected by the treaty were excluded. Eventually, after much protest and lobbying by the city, the process opened to the point that regional and local advisory committees were established to bring concerns forward. In the last stages of negotiations, the province allowed a municipal appointee as a member of the provincial negotiation team. The federal government has steadfastly refused such local input on their negotiating team. I believe this has been a detriment to the process.

However, paragraph 5 of chapter 21 of the treaty provides for an implementation committee. We, as a city, respectfully request the federal government to appoint one or more local qualified persons as their representatives on this committee. The introduction of an implementation plan sensitive to the needs of all of us here in the northwest is critical to a proper development of changes that may follow in the years ahead.

All of us living here want to be part of a better future. We know that treaties are not a panacea, but neither are they are a massive threat. They are one tool among many that allow all of us social and economic prosperity. This Nisga'a treaty provides an opportunity for them and non-natives to chart a common future to establish a framework for working together.

The City of Terrace eagerly looks forward to those opportunities. Let us begin the new millennium with renewed vigour and faith. We wish our Nisga'a neighbours well. Let us move forward with this new treaty.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Talstra.

Ms. Monaghan.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan (Chair, Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine): Thank you.

Madam Chair, committee members, as chair of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine, I wish to welcome this committee to our region. I understand you did a bit of the adventure tourism that is so popular in our area.

An hon. member: It was a white-knuckle ride.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I hope you enjoyed it.

Let me start by stating that the regional districts are a form of local government and a federation of municipalities and rural electoral areas. The regional district of Kitimat-Stikine is approximately 100,000 square kilometres in size. It consists of five incorporated municipalities—Kitimat, Terrace, Stewart, Hazelton and New Hazelton—and five large electoral areas. It is governed by a 12-member publicly elected board of directors, of which I am a member and currently the chair.

I also wish to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to appear before you to comment on the Nisga'a treaty negotiations. I know you are wondering about our thoughts and opinions on this treaty. At this time, I would like to share with you the comments I presented at two earlier conferences held after the signing of the Nisga'a Final Agreement, one hosted by the Pacific Business and Law Institute, and the other by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

• 1455

I believe these comments best represent the general opinions of the regional district board as a whole and should be repeated now for the record. However, before I begin I would like to provide the committee with several observations.

Change is often feared and often difficult to achieve or to accept initially. I appreciate there are still many, including some of my northwest local government colleagues, who continue to express misgivings about some aspects, or in a few cases probably the entire treaty.

However, I can assure you that it is the position of my board, and has been for well over a decade, that senior governments must deal with the native land claim issues in B.C. and negotiate fair, equitable and affordable treaties with our first nations neighbours. The ratification of the Nisga'a treaty will be the first of many such agreements that still need to be achieved in our region and throughout B.C. In our region, treaties that still need to be reached are with the Haisla, the Gitanyow, the Gitxsan, the Tsimshian, the Talthan and the Wet'suwet'en. So we have a lot of work ahead of us.

I can identify with the goals the Nisga'a have been trying to achieve through the treaty negotiations. We all want control over our economic future and over our political affairs. We have found considerable common ground with the Nisga'a in many local and regional issues, such as roads, communications, health care, and forestry policy. There are many areas of mutual interest and similar political and economic aspirations. It is essential that we continue to work with the Nisga'a as neighbour to neighbour to build a strong and lasting relationship within a new framework.

It is expected that with treaties must come certainty, community stability, and economic opportunity. The challenge before the Nisga'a and us is to prove the skeptics wrong and to show that the treaty-making process is the way to settle land claims. Land claims treaties should not be feared; it is the absence of successful treaty agreements that should be the real fear.

Now I will give the paper that I had given, and this is on the governance issues.

I will speak on four topics. First I want to review the relevant components of the Nisga'a Final Agreement as they apply to the regional district government. Ours is one of the shortest chapters. Perhaps this is explainable because of the high level of trust that has developed over the years with the Nisga'a people, and because of the considerable common ground that exists over issues and objectives of the Nisga'a communities and the other communities of the Kitimat-Stikine region.

Secondly, I'll provide an overview of the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine participation in the negotiations.

I also want to elaborate on the relationship that exists between the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine and the Nisga'a. I suggest understanding this relationship assists in understanding the broader context in which this part of the treaty was negotiated.

Finally, I will try to address the question of whether or not the local government chapter can be applied in other treaty negotiations. The short answer is that the special conditions that apply in our part of British Columbia probably limit the ability to make this chapter applicable in other treaties and negotiations. It is not a template.

Probably the most important aspect of the local government chapter is that all parties agreed the Nisga'a lands would remain within the regional district of the Kitimat-Stikine. There has been no separation or abandonment of involvement in the regional district structure.

The Nisga'a lands, sometimes called core lands, remain part of our electoral area A, one of five rural electoral areas of this region. The incorporated communities are Terrace, Kitimat, Stewart, Hazelton and New Hazelton. Nisga'a lands will cover about 2,000 square kilometres, which amounts to about 6% of the land mass of that one electoral area—only 6%.

Our 12-person regional board has often had first nations elected representation, and traditionally in electoral area A... As of now and for the five years that I was chairing the board, my vice-chairman has been Harry Nyce, who's from the Nass, and I've enjoyed working with him very much.

Under the final agreement, political representation on the regional district board remains the same. The electoral area A director is elected at large by all voters within the electoral area, and represents the entire electoral area, not just the area encompassed by Nisga'a lands. In terms of voting rights, residents of Nisga'a lands, whether native or non-native, retain the right to vote in regional district elections and referenda in accordance with provincial legislation.

• 1500

The treaty also does not erode current regional district jurisdictions in areas such as land use planning or general government. The islands of fee simple parcels surrounded by Nisga'a lands continue to be subject to our jurisdiction and current taxation regimes, including real property. The Nisga'a people will also receive fee simple parcels outside the core area, and these will be treated like other rural private property. Our jurisdiction will continue; our zoning bylaws, rules, and regulations will apply.

The treaty also gives protection for the Nisga'a that they will not be the victims of a gerrymander. That is, Nisga'a lands cannot be split into different electoral areas without Nisga'a consent. Consultation with the Nisga'a is guaranteed prior to any amendments being made to electoral area A boundaries. Local government services such as animal control, community water systems, fire protection, or landfill operation can be provided by the regional district to Nisga'a communities, or by Nisga'a government to regional district residents. The final agreement reinforces this capacity—in effect, a declaration that the regional district and the Nisga'a will continue to enter into service arrangements, including aspects of revenue collection and transfer.

Finally, the treaty establishes a protocol for continuing communications between the regional district and Nisga'a government. At the request of either party, we will meet on issues of mutual interest. We believe the agreement is flexible enough to allow our relationship to grow, because the treaty provides for a framework under which separate agreements and accords can be achieved and revised from time to time as necessary, and not cast in stone in a treaty.

As a side note, I think it's also important to highlight a few points in the agreement about taxation. Initially, non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land continued to be subject to current taxation regimes, including real property. They will not be taxed by the Nisga'a. The final agreement allows the Nisga'a government to make laws of direct taxation only on Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a land. However, these powers do not limit the powers of Canada or British Columbia to also impose or levy taxes.

In the agreement in principle, the parties agreed to try to negotiate real property taxation for the Nisga'a government on Nisga'a lands. However, we are told the Nisga'a are not pursuing real property taxation at this time, and the treaty is silent on the subject, except for the general provisions on delegation of tax powers.

By a separate taxation agreement, in the future the Nisga'a may negotiate with Canada and/or B.C. and attempt to reach agreement on the extent, if any, of direct taxation over non-Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands. This includes property taxes on non-Nisga'a occupiers of Nisga'a land, once Nisga'a government imposes these taxes on its own citizens. This will continue to be a topic of great interest for us, and we will want to ensure regional district interests and those of non-Nisga'a citizens are carefully considered.

Leaders on former Nisga'a reserves will begin paying property tax 12 years after the effective date of the treaty, and Nisga'a government, like other governments, will be exempt from property taxation on land that is vacant or not used commercially. We also believe the eventual removal of tax exemption status of the Nisga'a citizens under the Indian Act for transactions, as well as all other taxes, is a positive move that will keep the playing field level, so to speak, before the tax man and help create an equality that we all seek.

Now I'll go to the section of the regional district's involvement in the negotiations. I wish to start by stating that the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine was not a reluctant participant dragged into the morass of land claims negotiations. For well over a decade, the regional district board has approached successive senior governments calling for a negotiation process to proceed or to continue. Our boards have seen the economic consequences of not having certainty in the political environment, as have some other areas in the province.

• 1505

It is also worth noting a misconception some may have that local government was excluded from these treaty negotiations. At first we were very alarmed, as Mr. Talstra said, at the minimal role to which we were confined. But later, to the credit of the provincial government, a policy of openness emerged, and we were given a seat at the negotiating table as part of the provincial team. In the beginning, we had little confidence that these outsiders representing the provincial and federal governments could possibly understand our priorities, let alone negotiate a treaty that would protect our interests.

The solution was the creation of Skeena TAC, a treaty advisory committee, which I chair. It became possible through a protocol agreement between the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the province. Regional advisory committees, or RACs, and sectoral working committees were established as well. Funding from the provincial government assisted us in recruiting a TAC representative—a contract position that was filled by a former northwest mayor, George Thom, to stay in very close contact with the negotiators and act as our representative on the provincial negotiating team.

The Chair: You're over your time right now.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I'm sorry.

The Chair: Do you have a couple of wrap-up points?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: As I was saying, I came twice; I could go twice as long.

The Chair: It doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Okay. I'm sorry, I wasn't given a time.

Could I have about three minutes? Two minutes?

The Chair: Yes, and perhaps you can bring out some of the points you would have made in your answers. We can table your report.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Right, I will.

In closing, at the signing of this document in Aiyansh, Chief Gosnell proclaimed the Nisga'a canoe had landed. Were local government interests toppled in its wake? No, certainly not. Through careful construction of a treaty and recognition of many areas of mutual interest and similar political and economic development aspirations, the Nisga'a and the Regional District of Kitimat-Stikine should arrive safely at their chosen destinations. And though we may be travelling in separate canoes, we may well find it to be the same destination.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I'd like thank both Mayor Talstra and Joanne Monaghan for their presentations. I'd like to ask a quick question to the mayor. First of all, I have a comment.

Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure we're reading the same newspapers, based on your presentation here today, but you've put in your presentation, in the second paragraph, “Terrace's general support in principle of this treaty”. Now, over the course of the last four years, I've conducted two surveys in this community and in this region, in household mailouts. I've conducted two town hall meetings in this community, and I've also commissioned a poll. So I would like you to explain to the committee how you have come to the conclusion that Terrace is supportive of this treaty.

Mr. Jack Talstra: I guess you and I have a difference of opinion, Mr. Scott, on that one. This document is a representation of our entire council, and on our council, of course, we have six councillors plus me. When we discussed what our point of view should be to this hearing, we concluded that in general we are supportive of this treaty. The six councillors have lived here a long, long time. They have businesses in this community, they mix with the people who are here—they're on the streets and the sidewalks, and they talk to those who come here—and their conclusions were that this community is generally supportive.

Certainly there are some concerns, and you've articulated those concerns as well. In fact there's one concern that one councillor asked me to bring forward to this committee. This particular councillor felt the treaty did not adequately support the needs of women—that is, native women or Nisga'a women—with respect to the protection of common property and so on. She asked me to say that, so I'm saying it right now. There's a section in the treaty that everyone can look at it.

But my sense of it, quite frankly, Mr. Scott, in dealing with the councillors and the people in our community, is that they are generally supportive.

• 1510

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. But I think it's fair to say the people of Terrace have never had an opportunity to express their views on the treaty one way or another.

Mr. Jack Talstra: Well, let me follow up on that.

Early on, there was a call for a referendum, but it didn't receive much support. No one petitioned city council for that. No one came forward at our town hall meetings for that. Earlier on, maybe four or five months ago, one councillor brought forward a motion that we have a vote or a referendum. That didn't go anywhere at the council table. Just recently, in the past month, the fisheries coalition wrote letters to communities in British Columbia, including Terrace, and asked for a referendum vote. That was circulated among our councillors. Not one councillor brought that to the table at any of our meetings. I understand that throughout British Columbia generally, no community came forward except for perhaps one or two.

So my view remains the same. We're generally supportive in this community.

The Chair: Okay, time is up on that round.

For the Bloc, we'll go to Mr. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'd like to congratulate you on a fine, upbeat presentation. I have a question for Ms. Monaghan.

Lately, much has been said about the lack of provisions respecting aboriginal women in the Indian Act. Specifically, the legislation does not protect them when property owned on a reserve is divided, for example, following a marital breakdown. Some maintain that the Nisga'a Final Agreement will not resolve this problem. Would you care to clarify this issue for us? Does the agreement in fact afford aboriginal women more protection?

[English]

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I'm afraid I'm going to have to renege on an answer, because my expertise is more in the governance section. I spoke to some of the Nisga'a women earlier on, but I haven't spoken to them recently about it, so I wouldn't want to give you a wrong interpretation.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have a question?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair. I finally get to tell Mr. Talstra that I think his city is one of the nicest in all of British Columbia.

[English]

I hope you didn't miss that punch. I was telling you that Terrace is one of the nicest cities in British Columbia.

Mr. Jack Talstra: Thank you very much.

Mr. Claude Bachand: And you look to be a very nice mayor, also.

Mr. Jack Talstra: Thank you.

An hon. member: What about the tough questions?

The Chair: I'm taking it that you split your time between the two of you, with one question each.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Talstra, I'd appreciate it if you could explain a few things to me. You stated that the government immediately refused to designate someone to be a part of the negotiating team. Later, you said that you would like to see someone appointed to the implementation committee. Can you share with us the government's reasons for refusing to let you participate. You've just said that the provincial government finally decided to let you get involved. Why did the federal government decide otherwise?

• 1515

[English]

Mr. Jack Talstra: There have been negotiations for many years and decades. When they really started in earnest five or six years ago, I guess, we were concerned here in the northwest—and I guess it's a concern that smaller communities share wherever they are in rural Canada—that teams that we didn't know would arrive from Ottawa. We didn't know who they were or how competent they were, etc. Likewise for teams from Victoria. We wondered how we would know they were negotiating in our best interests on our behalf, so we felt suspicious, as rural Canada might feel suspicious.

We asked if there could be committees set up to looked at various aspects, whether it was forestry or taxation or whatever it might be, and we also said we wanted to make sure they were negotiating in our best interests at the table. We wanted to be in the room, at that table. We kept lobbying, and our provincial body, UBCM, lobbied on our behalf. Finally we were successful with the provincial government, and as Joanne Monaghan has explained as well, they did allow a local person as a member of the provincial negotiating team.

We thought it was important as well, especially in the aspect of fisheries, that there be a local person from the area—probably someone from Prince Rupert—on the federal negotiating team, but that just didn't happen. I don't know if we didn't have enough clout, or what happened. We did send letters. Those letters came back saying that they didn't feel it was necessary, so they didn't do it.

But there is now a chance for the federal government to make amends—that's my submission, at least—by putting local people on the implementation committee. There is an implementation committee set out in, I think, chapter 21. It would be appreciated very much if a qualified local person could be on it.

The Chair: Ms. Hardy, do you have any questions? No?

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Presenters, I'd like to thank you both for your presentations. It was very interesting to hear what you had to say as local politicians, people who are here on the ground and have a very good grasp on the issues. I think most of us have done a fair amount of research on this treaty. Most of us have been thrown into it and are removed from the process. We live in another part of the country, so it's important for us to actually have the opportunity to come here and to listen to the politicians who are on the ground.

This is really a comment more than it is a question, but certainly what we've heard about this treaty from your member of Parliament is that it's a fishery based on race, that it's taxation without representation, that Nisga'a women aren't represented, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't apply, and that the Constitution doesn't apply. That has been some matter of discussion amongst us politicians, and we're in total disagreement with those statements.

However, on taxation, I want to get back to that. I asked some questions about that previously. On the way the taxation regime will work for non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands, they will pay taxes directly to the Province of British Columbia. For non-Nisga'a who may buy a piece or a parcel of fee simple Nisga'a land from the Nisga'a, that will no longer be covered under the taxation regime, or not taxed by the Nisga'a, and will immediately be taxed by B.C. It still will belong to the Nisga'a territory, be part and parcel of it, and be governed under the rules, laws and regulations of that territory, but there is absolutely no taxation without representation.

Do you have a comment on that?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: It's correct.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's as simple as that?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Right.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

The Chair: You still have—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, that's good. Thank you.

The Chair: All right. Mr. O'Reilly, you have five minutes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the fact that municipal councillors have come forward. I'm a former municipal councillor. I know that when you walk out the door, the grassroots problems you have are the ones that you face. In the federal government we are sometimes isolated from those problems, and sometimes I miss them.

• 1520

My riding is in central Ontario, and it makes up a large portion of central Ontario—46 municipalities, 24 Santa Claus parades, 18 cenotaph services—so I understand. And we don't like the Toronto Maple Leafs, just so you know there are no Toronto Maple Leaf fans at the table.

A voice: He follows les Canadiens.

Mr. John O'Reilly: From Ontario, yes.

Mr. Jack Talstra: The Canucks are doing better.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Yes, they are, but we have to cheer for the Senators whether we like senators or not.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. John O'Reilly: I'm glad to see that the mayor and the regional district chair are in favour of the agreement and are participating in the agreement. I think that's very important to it.

I don't think anyone should have any doubts that the treaty is signed and will go through. It may be held up in parliamentary procedure, and there may be some things that will happen. But it is ratified, and Bill C-9 will be supported by four of the five parties in Parliament, along with some of the independent members. Even a few Reformers will be absent the day the vote takes place. So I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind, and there shouldn't be any doubt about the resolve of the federal government to see this go through. It's signed. So as far as whether it will go through is concerned, I think you should say with great certainty that it will go through.

A voice: Will you take a question from the floor?

Mr. John O'Reilly: No.

The Chair: No.

A voice: I'm going to ask it anyway. If this is ratified, why are we here?

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I'm coming to that.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: We're only in B.C. because of a tactic by the Reform Party to hijack Parliament. In fact we came here on the white-knuckle route. I haven't been on a train yet, but I've been on every other mode of transportation. This little dance and song is costing the taxpayers $500,000 directly because of the Reform Party.

I have to tell you that I've been to British Columbia many times, probably on nine or ten occasions. I love it. It's a great province. I was a ski bum at Whistler, but I don't want to talk about that.

I think future treaties are of great interest to this committee, of which I'm a member and on which I'm quite pleased to serve. Minister Nault is going forward right now with 18 treaties. He expects that there are 18 treaties under negotiation at this moment. I suppose this committee could learn from you and from your direct negotiations what it is that you see as the easiest and most effective way to improve the treaty process. To me, a treaty versus the old Indian Act is the way to go. You're dealing with real things then; you're not gathering a bunch of people together and herding them into some process. Anyone who wants to go to Labrador—I've been at the Sheshatsui Reserve—and tell me that's the way to treat native people should have his head examined.

So what would you see as the easiest and effective way to improve the treaty process? That's my reason for being in beautiful British Columbia.

The Chair: Ms. Monaghan.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: You're probably not going to appreciate what I say very much.

I enjoyed working with the Nisga'a on their negotiations; however, I've now been thrown into many others. I can tell you that there's a great deal of secrecy yet, especially on the side of the federal government. In about May, we just had a situation that came to light about negotiations that were completely secret from anyone else's. They had been going on for one year. I can tell you that this is not acceptable. If you can get the secrecy out of there and bring it into the open, let everybody be at the table and allow them to know what's going on, you're going to have much better results.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Talstra, go ahead.

Mr. Jack Talstra: Yes, I just wanted to add to that.

Mr. David Iftody: I have a point of order. I would ask Ms. Monaghan to clarify precisely what she was referring to by those secret negotiations, if she could, please.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I'm not sure whether they're even out in the media yet. I hesitate to divulge things that aren't public knowledge.

Mr. David Iftody: That's fine. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Talstra.

Mr. Jack Talstra: I just wanted to add to what Joanne was saying in terms of how we can do things better.

• 1525

The Nisga'a treaty was the first treaty negotiation for a long time in British Columbia and is outside of the general B.C. Treaty Commission. All the other treaties that are coming down the line now are within that framework, where there are certain set rules on how to negotiate and so on, and quite frankly they have been a lot more open.

I think really that's the key. There has to be a chance for the public to participate in these treaty negotiations in some way, because that gives a much greater comfort level to those who live in the particular area where the negotiation is going on. That's being done here now with the Tsimshian negotiations. They're basically open houses. When they have a session, you can just show up and sit behind the table, as it were, and listen to things. They do have in camera sessions from time to time, of course, on sensitive issues, but generally it's open, and if you want to be there you can be there. Quite frankly, not too many people show up, but the possibility for that is there.

The thing to watch for—and it makes me nervous and others nervous—is that while the treaty negotiations are going on there are also interim measures, sort of like side agreements, that are going on. So you might have a discussion about forestry issues and what land and timber might be allocated to a first nation, but meanwhile that area is being logged. While you're talking about what you're going to do, the trees are disappearing. So there are interim measures that are put in place so people know what's going on. It's not often the public knows what these interim measures are. I think they too have to be open.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Gouk, please.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you.

First I'd like to thank Mr. O'Reilly for acknowledging that the Liberal side did not want to come to British Columbia and hear what British Columbians had to say.

Mr. John O'Reilly: That's not true.

Mr. Jim Gouk: It's on record, and also that Reform is responsible for this committee actually coming here and listening to what you have to say on either side.

Ms. Monaghan, what community are you from—Terrace or Kitimat?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Kitimat. I'm a 30-year resident of Kitimat.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay. How do you think relations between Kitimat and Terrace would be if one of the communities didn't have to pay provincial tax, didn't have to pay GST, and the students from there were allowed to go to university without tuition but none of those benefits were available to the others? Would that tend to make you get along better or create a rift between the two communities?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I guess it all depends on whether Kitimat had had all of its land taken away and they had been moved to a reserve before it happened.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Gouk: So in other words, the settlement we're making through this agreement doesn't right those wrongs. It's a payment en route, but the wrongs are so extensive that even after this agreement we still have to continue to make these special arrangements for one group of people and not another.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I guess I've heard ever since I came here that the aboriginals don't pay taxes. They get all their schooling free. They get all their houses free. They get everything, and everybody's really mad about that. Now when someone is making some inroads in trying to correct those things and bring them into their nation, everybody's upset.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I think there were grievous wrongs in the past and there are problems today because of the way aboriginal people were treated in the past, and we have to right those, but they have to end at a point of equality. I don't see the Nisga'a treaty doing it.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: We probably look at it a different way.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I guess so. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: My question is directed to both of you. I enjoyed your presentation, since it espouses more or less the same views that the Bloc Québécois defended in the House on second reading. Having read the agreement in its entirety, I think you've summarized it quite well, particularly the provisions pertaining to economic development and those pertaining to relations with the residents of the municipality represented by Mayor Talstra. Looking at the issue from an economic as well as a municipal standpoint, do you feel that this agreement is a perfect blend of economic and municipal interests as well as aboriginal interests? In other words, are many of the agreement's provisions precedent-setting and likely to be included in treaties concluded with other nations in British Columbia?

• 1530

I understand that the British Columbia Treaty Commission is giving these matters careful consideration. Of course, the Nisga'a were outside the process, but I'd like to know if residents intend to co-exist in a more harmonious manner in future, now that the responsibilities of the respective parties have been clearly defined?

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Monaghan.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: My very short answer would be this is not a template. I think each one is individual. I've lived along the coast in tiny villages, in Klemtu, Kitkatla, Bella Bella, and I've lived in Moricetown. I have a lot of dealings with the Nisga'a. Each group is different and must be dealt with accordingly.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have another question?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes. I'd like Mr. Talstra to answer the question on the future co-existence of the residents of his municipality and of the Nisga'a communities.

[English]

Mr. Jack Talstra: This is the same question as I was asked before?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

Mr. Jack Talstra: Yes, it's not a perfect marriage; it's negotiation. You heard today that the Nisga'a had to concede a few points as well and didn't get everything they wanted, and the provincial and federal negotiators didn't get everything they wanted. So it's a compromise in that way, but it's a compromise that in our view appears to satisfy everybody as well as it can.

I should say that every first nation has a slightly different point of view on what to negotiate and how to negotiate it. So we have to take each negotiation on its own and on its own merits. The Tsimshian treaty, if and when it comes down, will probably look different from the Nisga'a treaty and has to be negotiated in a different way.

The Chair: Thank you. Your five minutes are up, and my apologies to Mr. Bonin because we were on second round. Actually, you should have gone in that time period.

Mr. Bonin, five minutes.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is to Your Worship Talstra. I too come from municipal politics and board of education, the works, and having sat at both levels, federal and municipal, I know your level is the one that is closest to the people. It's very difficult for me to be in touch with the majority of my constituents when there are 100,000 of them and they're spread over 500 kilometres.

When I was a municipal councillor I knew how the population felt, and I'm sure you do too. I sense the people in this room are supportive of their mayor, from what reactions I've felt.

Mr. Jack Talstra: I hope so. There are elections on November 20.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Raymond Bonin: November 20 is a good day; it's my birthday.

You can tell, when you're that close to the people, how they feel. I'd like to know from you what strong messages have been sent to you by the people who your MPs say are opposed to this treaty. I know darn well, sitting on municipal councils, they never hesitate to let us know when they're against something. Try to rezone a property and see how they show up. But if I put out a householder as a member of Parliament, I know statistically that 5% of the people respond.

So I'm interested in knowing what presentations were made to your council by your federal representative, your provincial, and, most importantly, by your constituents? I'm talking about people opposed.

Mr. Jack Talstra: Yes. There have not been strong presentations made in opposition, but there are people in our community who are opposed to this treaty, and some for good reasons. Our economy is dependent on the forest industry here in the immediate area of Terrace and we have had some difficulties.

• 1535

The forest industry has been in a bit of a decline in the last few years and our markets have disappeared overseas a little bit, and so on, and our mills have been operating sporadically. That causes some fear and that causes some tension, and in the treaty process there is a reallotment of forests and that sort of thing. So people wonder if they are going to have the same sort of lifestyle and economic well-being they had before, with all these changes coming in.

So there is a concern that way, and I can understand it. But in terms of people organizing and picketing my house, or picketing city hall, that hasn't happened. Of course there are concerns, and at the same time I have to say the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley spend their money in Terrace by shopping here every weekend, and in this time of slight economic decline, quite frankly, they've kept us afloat here. Kitimat shoppers—sorry, Joanne—come to Terrace as well, and so do other areas, but certainly the Nisga'a do, and our shops and businesses have been in a little bit of trouble here the last few years, but the Nisga'a have continued to shop here and be here. They're our neighbours and we know them. We grew up with them and we've gone to school with them, and there are joint ventures going between them and people in our community. So there is good feeling toward them.

But there is a fear of the unknown that affects people. And you can go through the treaty and probably find some points from our perspective that we would like to see a little better. But it's a package, and it's give and take. This is the best we can do, and I think we should go for it.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Hardy, do you have a question?

Ms. Louise Hardy: No.

The Chair: Mr. Iftody, and then Mr. Keddy.

Mr. David Iftody: I want to pick up on that same theme again.

I am quite intrigued by the notion of two well-known...one a regional. I believe, if I understood the opening presentation, you mentioned something about representing 12 districts, Ms. Monaghan, in your area, and obviously the mayor here as well.

Ms. Monaghan, in your presentation, you referred on several occasions to the notion of change and fear. We're on this theme of consulting with the people of British Columbia. That's why we're here, that's why the committee's here. We want to hear from all points of view. But I'm struck that here we have two senior politicians from the area—my colleagues have raised this whole notion of being close to the people and listening to them—being sensitive. For no sake other than your own political skin, of course, going into an election and other considerations, not small, you would want to be very, very sensitive to these kinds of issues, and you would be rebuked, I think, most certainly and sternly from your constituents were you to be absolutely on the wrong side of this. But I am intrigued and impressed by the fact that you're both here and you have spoken, if I can conclude that way, generally in support of this treaty.

But you use the term “fear”, and you say there are lots of folks out there who perhaps have some deep concerns, and maybe some of them are imagined. Perhaps what we can do here today is allay some of what I think are unfounded fears and certainly talk openly. We have the member of Parliament for Skeena here with us. I understand he's from around this community. Perhaps talking openly about these kinds of things is a way to flush them out into the open, and we can look at them clearly and see whether we should fear them or not.

I think in your opening presentations you used that word six or seven times; I made a note of that. In your own view, what... You said people fear change, and “it's perhaps uncertainty”. And, Mayor Talstra, you refer to the fact that perhaps underlying this is economic uncertainty.

• 1540

But what can we do as a committee, going back to the House of Commons for further debate? What can we say to the people of Canada through the House of Commons, through this committee, about addressing those fears? I think that's really an important central issue to this discussion. Could you help us with that?

Mr. Jack Talstra: I think you can look at the treaty and at each chapter very carefully with a critical eye just to make sure, looking at it again as maybe somebody new would look at it to see if there is something we have missed, which may be possible, because after reading it several times you maybe don't see a point that someone with a fresh mind might see. So I think you can do that and assure the people of Canada that you've looked at it carefully and it seems to be fair to all concerned.

There is another thing you can do, though. Getting back to this implementation committee, I think it's very important that it be structured and set up in a proper manner with all three parties so that you can say to the people of Canada, look, the treaty is signed and will be law, but we're going to make sure that if there's something in there that doesn't look quite right, we can at least address it at the implementation stage.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: Perhaps I should say that my presentation was on the chapter of governance. On that particular chapter all 12 directors agreed. In fact, I guess I could put it very simplistically by saying nothing has changed. It's business as usual with that particular item. They do have some concerns in some of the other areas, but as a group they accepted it.

I think some of the concerns were along the economic development lines. We feel that economic development has been stagnated because people are waiting for the treaties to come to fruition and for business to continue. They have some apprehensions about the economic development responsibilities that will be on the Nisga'a. They feel that the 12-year taxation will never come into place, that we're just kidding ourselves. Those are some of the things.

I do agree with Jack. I think implementation is going to be very crucial, and it will be the way to make the water smooth.

Mr. David Iftody: I want to summarize again by thanking these witnesses. This certainly has been a very informative exercise for me as parliamentary secretary.

In debating this in the House, I've been led to believe by interventions from other members of Parliament that apparently the sky had ripped in half over this part of the world, that bad things were going to happen to the people out here if this treaty were signed and all sorts of evil would befall the good folks of this area, whereas I'm comforted by hearing your comments, particularly with the people you represent here in Terrace, and Madam Monaghan for the area generally. I think it has been a very informative exercise, and I'm deeply comforted by what I've heard here from you, the grassroots politicians in this area.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Did you wish to say something?

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I was just going to say we were never asked to have a delegation to the regional district on this issue at all. No one came to us as a delegation.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, you'll have the last five-minute round on this set of witnesses.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are still a couple of issues that I picked up on in your discussion about whether this treaty was a template for other treaties. Certainly as a parliamentarian I would hope there are some parts of this treaty that would serve as a template.

I think we understand that all first nations have different wants and needs and aspirations and different allocation of resources, and there is different potential to settle land title issues, one of them being the availability of land. I think as parliamentarians we understand those issues.

• 1545

One of the issues in this treaty that I'd like to lay to rest is the fact that women are somehow not represented. In my understanding of this treaty, certainly women are represented. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies, the Constitution of Canada applies, and everything inherent in those two bills applies. Therefore, women are treated equally in the treaty. If anyone has an understanding that is different from mine, I'd appreciate knowing it at this time.

When it comes to the division of property, we can take a few basics from this treaty, including the fact that the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply and that we're going to settle aboriginal title hopefully forever. We understand there are some overlapping land claims, and there is a provision within the treaty to deal with those. There are the dovetailing of resources between the native and non-native community; the fact that we have an agreement in principle on logging, which will directly affect both of your municipal areas; and a 10-year period before the Nisga'a can involve themselves in a logging operation or a sawmill, so there's a phase-in period. I would hope that all of these types of things would be part of a template for new treaties.

I'm wondering if I missed anything in that rundown. You've said already that you think there needs to be more involvement with people on the ground and with municipal units at the negotiation stage and that there should be more open meetings. But is there anything outside of that list of items that either one of you can think of?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mayor Talstra.

Mr. Jack Talstra: You've named quite a few of the most important aspects of the treaty. There will be some repetition, I think, in other treaties of things in this treaty.

In this region there are probably five or six more treaties to go. Each first nation has its own unique identity, and each first nation jealously guards what they consider to be their traditions and culture. So it's perhaps a template for some things, such as a section on definitions and that sort of thing, but it will involve new negotiations with each first nation.

Ms. Joanne Monaghan: I've already stated that I do not think it's a template. Each chapter could be looked at in order to see if it did or did not fit, but I think using it as a template would be a big mistake.

The Chair: This will be your last question.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I understood what you meant by using it as a template. I'm not suggesting that the entire treaty would be involved. What I'm saying is that there are certain articles and some basic ideas within this treaty that all Canadians embrace, and that includes the fact that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada apply and that there's equality for women within it. That's what I meant by using things in this treaty as a template.

Mr. Jack Talstra: With regard to the protection of women's rights or support for the needs of women, especially in areas of estates, adoptions, and perhaps even divorces, this an internal matter for the Nisga'a Nation. Those are matters that Nisga'a women are talking about with their own negotiators. I'm assuming that the final negotiations that took place were agreeable to all those within the Nisga'a Nation. That's an internal matter for them. When this was raised at our council table, I did have someone check with some of the Nisga'a negotiators as to how this was doing, and they seemed to be satisfied with those particular provisions.

The Chair: At this point I want to thank Mayor Talstra and our regional representative, Ms. Monaghan. Thank you very much for appearing.

• 1550

I also want to thank publicly Jack Mussallem, the mayor of Prince Rupert, who made his way down here this morning but then could not return this afternoon because of his schedule. We certainly appreciate his efforts. When he delivers something to the committee, we will make sure it's distributed.

Thank you very much, and I'll excuse the witnesses now.

For the committee members, it is now 3.50 p.m. We will take a 10-minute break and return at 4 p.m. to hear the next set of witnesses. We will move to meeting number six, which was scheduled for this afternoon. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned until 4 p.m.