STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, November 17, 1999

• 0922

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Welcome, everyone. My name is Sue Barnes, and I'm chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

We're very happy to be with you here today, and we're very happy that two of our colleagues who are the members of Parliament from this region are joining us and the committee today.

I'm going to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the local members.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): I'm Jay Hill, member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River.

Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): I'm Dick Harris, MP for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. Welcome to my town.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): I'm Mike Scott, member of Parliament from Skeena.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): My name is Claude Bachand and I'm the member of Parliament for Saint-Jean. Saint-Jean is about 25 miles south of Montréal. I'm also the Bloc Québécois critic for Indian Affairs.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): My name is Ghislain Fournier and I'm the Bloc Québécois member for Manicouagan.

[English]

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

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'm Gerald Keddy, member of Parliament for South Shore in Nova Scotia. I'm also the Progressive Conservative critic for both Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Natural Resources.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I'm John O'Reilly, member of Parliament for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock in central Ontario. It's about 80 miles north of Toronto, and we don't cheer for the Leafs.

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): My name is Raymond Bonin and I'm the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt, in northern Ontario.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'm John Finlay. I'm from Oxford riding in southwestern Ontario, and I'm vice-chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee.

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

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

The Chair: I will also introduce Mary Hurley and Tonina Simeone, researchers for the committee from the Library of Parliament, along with committee clerk Christine Fisher and legislative assistant clerk Richard Dupuis.

• 0925

If anybody has a brief they wish to table, either here at the hearing or afterwards, they can write to the committee clerk and the brief will be received. So that there is order in the room, we have a clerk representative in the hallway ready to accept your brief at any time during the hearing.

I understand Mr. Bachand has something to say about the documents to be transmitted.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Madam Chair, I just wanted to tell you that we will not be objecting any more to the tabling of documents that are in English only, provided that they be translated hopefully as soon as practicable. I believe that this will make the committee's work easier during the public hearings.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think that is very accommodating to the committee's work, and we appreciate it.

For the information of people present, normally when documents are tabled they are tabled in either official language. The committee decided the other day that we would circulate the documents when they were translated, but to expedite the communication, we gratefully receive Mr. Bachand's and the Bloc's accommodation on this point.

So all of the documents can be handed in, in one language or the other, and they will be translated by the House of Commons into alternate languages and distributed later in the second language. So any of our witnesses' documents now can be distributed around the table.

Mr. Richard Harris: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I would like to deposit with the clerk a letter of request handed to me this morning from an organization called BC in Focus, which represents many thousands of Prince George and central interior residents. They are requesting that in view of the scarcity of witnesses, and in particular voices from central British Columbia—

The Chair: This is not a point of order. Is there a point of order?

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes, there is, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Excuse me one moment.

To the media, I made it very clear that when we're travelling, we have to have a televised order, gavel to gavel, at these meetings. The clerk will deal with that.

Now, if you have a point of order, please go ahead.

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair, I would like to request that the committee accept this request by the BC in Focus group to appear as witnesses on today's agenda. If a motion is required to that effect, I would be happy to move that motion.

The Chair: Thank you very much, but that is not a point of order. You can file the request with the clerk. This committee has a motion that all motions are held at the end of business.

We will go on right now to our first witness, who has been invited for the day, Mr. Jack Nichol—

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair, on a point of order—

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes, I do, Madam Chair.

Could I have some clarity on that last statement? I have never been on a committee where a motion has been forbidden to be introduced during the normal business of the committee. Is this something that is particular to this committee?

The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, I know you're not a normal member of this committee. This committee has a rule, as do many other committees of the House of Commons—and I don't know about the one you're on—that notice of motions need 48 hours, and notice of motions go to the clerk.

So in 48 hours we can deal with that, Mr. Harris. If you don't know that, I think the other Reform Party members of the committee can advise you of that. Thank you.

An hon. member: That's nonsense.

The Chair: Mr. Nichol, we will go—

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chair: The chair rules that we will hear the witness who was invited today.

There are two points of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: I would like to challenge what you just said, because over the last few days several amendments have been made to the witness list where notice of 48 hours was not given. I received a witness list one day with names on it, and the very next day I received another witness list with different names on it. There have been additions and deletions, which does not correspond with what you just said.

An hon. member: And changes of times.

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes, and changes of times.

An hon. member: There are changes all the time.

• 0930

The Chair: The committee made its witness choices in Ottawa two weeks ago, and members of the Reform Party were present. These witnesses have been lined up and invited, and we are trying very hard to make sure these people who have come to—

A voice: [Editor's Note—Inaudible].

The Chair: Order, please.

We will commence our hearings with Mr. Jack Nichol, who has been invited here, along with Mr. Randy Dobson and David Haggard. These two people have not yet shown, and they have not yet confirmed to us, even though they have been invited and they were on the witness list.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a different point of order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: My understanding, from the short six years I've been an elected member of Parliament, Madam Chairman, is that committees are masters of their own destiny. Just because a motion was passed in Ottawa.... Subsequently there have been a number of changes to the witness list.

Since it's come to our attention that witnesses have declined, for whatever reason, to appear today, I would move that the committee consider that local people who have appeared today be allowed to make representations in those time slots.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: For clarification, I will read the motion that was passed by this committee, and it was by unanimous consent, which includes the Reform Party members—unanimous consent. On the motion of John O'Reilly, it was agreed that unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours' notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee. That included all parties unanimously agreeing, which included the Reform Party, I might add.

On the second motion of John O'Reilly, it was agreed that when witnesses are appearing before the committee, any questions on procedure or administrative matters not related to the order of the day will be postponed until the end of the questioning of witnesses, at the discretion of the chair.

We will proceed with our scheduled witness, and we will allow him the time until 10.45.

Welcome, Mr. Jack Nichol. The floor is yours. You can make your presentation, and then we will have rounds of questioning. Please go ahead.

Mr. Jack Nichol (Past President, United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union): Thank you.

Perhaps I should identify myself something more than I already have. I'm appearing on behalf of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, who are now affiliated with the Canadian Auto Workers. I'm a past president of the UFAWU, and during my term as president, I was involved with the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee that was set up under the claims commission. I was also a member of the Fisheries Sectoral Committee, what came to be known as TNAC.

While the Nisga'a agreement wasn't covered by the new claims process—and those negotiations have been ongoing for about the past 20 years—nevertheless TNAC was accorded a report from time to time as to how the negotiations with the Nisga'a were progressing, the decisions that had been made, where agreement had been reached, and the like. So we were kept pretty well informed of what was going on.

We took a particular interest in the fisheries component of the Nisga'a agreement, and we had considerable say in how that would take shape. For example, we were given an explanation by Mr. Mike Shepard, who was a consultant working with the negotiators representing the third-party interest. Mr. Shepard has a long history of doing work in the fishing industry. He was a chief negotiator for Canada many years ago in the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks.

After presenting the fisheries component to us as it was then, he pointed out that it would result in about 13% to 16% of the Nass River salmon going to the Nisga'a. His remark on that was, “Wouldn't it be great if, on a coast-wide basis, the aboriginal people would get 13% to 16% of the salmon resource, and the commercial and recreational fishermen would get the remainder?”

• 0935

Well, we didn't quite see it that way. We said if all of the first nations that have claims on fish, all down the coast of British Columbia, in some of the lower portions of rivers, and even in the interior were to claim 13% to 16%, the total effect of that, the aggregate, would be that nothing would be left. The commercial fishery would be extinct, and the recreational fishery would be affected as well.

When he told us it was 13% to 16% and he thought that was great, he asked us if that wouldn't be satisfactory on a coast-wide basis. We said, “Are you offering that? If you are, then maybe we can come to some agreement.” But he obviously wasn't offering that.

We set up a subcommittee of the fishery sectoral to try to determine what the impact of the Nisga'a settlement would be if applied on a coast-wide basis, nation by nation. We had several meetings looking into that. Finally we were told by the chief representative from Ottawa that that was the end of it; we weren't going to go any further. In my opinion, if we had continued with that work and made that final determination, we would have found that 13% to 16% would have an enormous impact, probably 150% of the fish. I'm just throwing that figure out for dramatization, I suppose.

However, we had to look at the Nisga'a agreement in particular as it was. The difference between it and a coast-wide application, or something like it, is that the Nisga'a are residents in a valley where there's a single river system—there are many tributaries, but the fish return—and they're taking what is statistical area 3. The Nisga'a fish there now, and they take their fish for ceremonial, food, and societal purposes in that same fishery. So non-aboriginals share that fishery, and that would continue.

One of the things we insisted on was that there ought not to be a special commercial fishery for the Nisga'a, and that was agreed. There is a certain allocation of fish, but if there is no surplus that would permit a commercial fishery in area 3, then both the Nisga'a and the non-aboriginal people would be prohibited from fishing. There is a formula that determines how much fish would be allocated.

So now we see that for all of our input into this, we won some and we lost some.

Another great change was made when they were first talking of the commercial allocation to the Nisga'a. They suggested that that commercial allocation would be enshrined in the treaty, in the agreement, and that if it were, it would be given constitutional protection, just like their so-called section 35 fish.

We argued that it was wrong to enshrine in the Constitution protection for a commercial operation, for a commercial enterprise. No other Canadian would have that. That was agreed to finally, so the commercial allocation is set up in something of a side agreement. So we were able to influence those talks from time to time on certain things, but not on everything certainly.

But now we have a fait accompli. The treaty is there. We've listened to all of the people who have spoken against it and the people who have called for a referendum. We've heard the reasons, and they seem to be innumerable.

If Canadians were to turn this down, I don't know how you'd ever go back to aboriginal people, the Nisga'a in particular, sit down at a table, and say, “We want to negotiate a treaty.” It just couldn't happen. We think—

A voice: You could always go back to the people of Canada.

Mr. Jack Nichol: —negotiations are certainly the way to go. They're the method that is going to settle the land claims satisfactorily.

A voice: That's not true.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Jack Nichol: Well, the alternative then is to go to court. We've seen judges making decisions, and I don't believe it's their place at all to make policy in Canada.

A voice: [Editor's Note—Inaudible].

Mr. Jack Nichol: That is the responsibility—

• 0940

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Nichol. I'll just ask the audience to make sure we extend courtesy to our witnesses, and we want to hear what you have to say. What you have to say is valuable to us.

A voice: The federal government made the decision—

The Chair: I will ask that the people be courteous to the people who are trying to get their ideas across. Thank you.

A voice: In Prince George, in British Columbia—

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: It was the courts that made the decision on the fisheries on the east coast—

A voice: But the courts on the west coast—

Mr. Jack Nichol: —and I think that is the problem. I don't know why we should entrust this to the courts, which are unaccountable to the people, really. We believe that's the role of the politicians.

The Chair: Take your time, Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: One of the concerns we have is that while the Nisga'a agreement has been outside of the claims commission process, and it is unique, that it not be used as a template for other claims, that we start there and negotiate again. The allocations to the Nisga'a in both the treaty and the side fisheries agreement fit the Nass River, but they would not if those provisions were applied on a coast-wide basis. So we are concerned that when we look at negotiations with the other first nations—and many are already at the agreement-in-principle stage—we don't start from here and start to believe we can apply this on a coast-wide basis.

There are some other things we are concerned about, and I think these involve decisions that have been made more recently. Certainly, one of the things we see is that salmon has been used as currency in negotiations. The government has given some very high priority to the relevance of fish to the interests and culture of first nations, and maybe justifiably so. But other people should at least not have their rights expropriated by what is done by our negotiators.

A voice: What about expropriating the rights of the people across—

The Chair: Order. Would the clerk request this gentlemen to be quiet. Go and speak to him, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: This has been the case, it seems. We're probably one of the few segments of Canadian society that were faced with a particular action by government as a prelude, almost, to the negotiations. That is what is called the aboriginal fisheries strategy, which resulted in commercial allocations to aboriginal people, the legalization of the sale of fish that formerly was taken only for food and ceremonial purposes.

I believe that has wreaked some havoc on the industry and certainly on our fisheries. We only have to look at the state of our fisheries resources now. For the first time, in 1999 there was no commercial fishery on Fraser River stocks of salmon. In 1998, which should have been a bumper year, we should have harvested something in the order of—and when I say we, I don't mean just commercial, but aboriginal and recreational—about 12.5 million salmon from the Fraser River. We had one-tenth of that.

That was the harbinger, I suppose, of it being shut down this year. We don't really know what the future is going to bring, and we don't know what is the cause of all of this. We get ocean survival, we get habitat problems, and the like.

I think it's a matter of the Government of Canada trying to do too much with fish, just trying to do too many things with it, and we lost the ability to control and manage the fishery, with the result that our stocks have suffered. While we may get arguments that there was ample escapement to some of the major streams, there has to be some explanation of why we haven't seen the returns and the surpluses that normally would have accrued to those who rely on the fisheries.

Aboriginal rights are a fine thing, and there are many definitions of exactly what they are, but they don't mean anything with regard to fish if there are no fish. They're affected in just the same way, then, as any others who rely on fisheries. So we see some things happening to the Fraser River stocks this year that again are unprecedented.

• 0945

In Smith Inlet, which is in the central coast area of British Columbia, we've had an exclusive gill-net fishery for 100 years. There has been some logging, some overexploitation of fish, and whatever. This year they expected to get 230,000 sockeye back to Rivers Inlet. That wouldn't have meant there was a fishable surplus, but at least it would have been a good spawning stock, and the returns would have come four years down the line.

There are some streams there that have four sockeye in them. In one of the major rivers flowing into Owikeno Lake, where we would normally expect to have about 50,000 sockeye, there's something in the order of about a dozen. The fishermen who have fished Rivers Inlet for years and years and know that area like the back of their hand are saying this isn't simply a depletion of fish but rather actual extinction.

None of these things are explainable as yet. I don't think we have the science. We have to develop it. I'm certainly not blaming aboriginal people for the decline in those stocks and the state they're in. I think we have to take hold of this resource and begin to manage it in such a way that we restore it to historic levels and even beyond, if the habitat will support that.

Fishermen, ostensibly for other purposes, have been asked to sell their licences in what we call the buyback—just their licences, not their boats. They offer their licence at a price, and if that's accepted, they're paid out. It's described as a voluntary decision to sell a licence. I can tell you that it's not. The economics simply force fishermen to the wall, and they really have no alternative but to get out of the industry, even though they may be second, third, and fourth generation fishermen trying to make a living from the fishing industry.

I can recall a number of years ago when I was chairman of the minister's advisory council and Roméo LeBlanc was the minister. He was going to implement a mini-buyback to see what might be on the market in the way of buying up vessels and licences. I said to him, fishermen have a particular way of life, a particular interest, and maybe they won't want to sell their licences. Maybe they'll want to remain in the industry, and you won't be able to buy their licences back. What happens then? He said, we'll just tighten the screws until such time as they do.

And that's about what has happened. The screws have been tightened. There has been such a dramatic decline in the opportunities for fishermen to make a living, coupled with a decline in our stocks, that the screws have certainly been tightened, and fishermen are selling, because that's the only option they have, really. That should never be considered by anyone here to be some method of compensation to fishermen for being displaced by government decisions, whether they are related to aboriginal land claims or environmental factors.

Since the Nisga'a treaty came down and is now facing ratification in Parliament, some statements have been made by people in high places and in some cases by ministers. An announcement was made recently by the Minister of Fisheries, although I think it was worked out by the previous minister, Mr. Anderson, saying that the way fish is going to be allocated in the future, the first priority will be conservation. The next priority will be aboriginal fisheries for food, ceremonial, and societal purposes, and fish required by treaties.

• 0950

I don't think that's gone before TNAC. I don't think it's gone before the Fisheries Sectoral Committee. The problem with it is that it seems to be a reversal of what we had agreed to in Nisga'a, that the commercial allocation would be outside of the treaty and would not be given constitutional protection. It seems to me that with this announcement, the commercial allocation that is acquired by treaty, if any, would then be part of the treaty given constitutional protection. If that's not so, it certainly hasn't been clarified.

Recently there was a statement by a provincial minister, Mr. Lovick, and I see that the forest industry has picked up on it and describe it as alarm bells for loggers.

We talk about extinguishment, and TNAC worked through that. There was the matter that treaties were going to extinguish rights, and there was an objection to that. There was a judge from Manitoba who was asked to inquire into the question of extinguishment, or certainty, as we called it. He did that, but his report didn't get very far, and there have been two or three other versions.

Mr. Lovick is saying he's willing to work with the first nations summit to address their concerns that aboriginal rights be protected from extinguishment. I can tell you that one of the hottest things in TNAC—and if anybody here is not familiar with the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Council, it's made up of about 50 individuals sitting around a table, with a lot of help from government and bureaucrats. It is people from just about any segment of the economy in British Columbia and people who represent some very powerful interests.

The one thing they were concerned with is this question of certainty. As we understood it, treaties were going to be a matter of replacing undefined aboriginal rights with treaty rights, and they would therefore then take the place of the aboriginal right that is claimed, which is vague and undefined. We would define that right, and these treaties would impose an obligation on both aboriginals and non-aboriginals to live up to the terms of those treaties.

Now we get a statement like this. Again, I don't know whether Mr. Lovick talked to the TNAC people. I'm no longer a member of that body. But when we see these ad lib, ad hoc announcements about allocations without reference to the industry, and when we see references like this, then we do indeed become concerned.

I think the Nisga'a agreement has certainly struck a chord of uncertainty, and certainly there is lots of concern. You're hearing it, and you'll hear more of it as you go around.

It doesn't bode well for the future of the claims commission that more and more of the first nations are now going to court. I see the other day the Haida launched a court action to claim all of the Queen Charlotte Islands. I think this is where it's heading.

I would urge that something be done to accelerate the claims process and get on with the job of negotiating these treaties, because I don't want to see it entrusted to the courts. I don't think that is the place for it. It should be done by the governments of Canada with the governments of the first nations.

A voice: Representing the people of the province of B.C.

The Chair: Is that the conclusion of your remarks?

Mr. Jack Nichol: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We go now to a series of questions from the members. We will go for five minutes, and the five minutes includes the question and the answer. Then we will have as many rounds...we have time for exhaustive questioning, and we'll do that in order around the table.

We'll commence with the Reform Party, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a couple of questions for Mr. Nichol, but before I get to them, my understanding of parliamentary procedure is that every committee is master of its own destiny. We have people who want to appear before this committee. There's time—

Mr. David Iftody: Excuse me, Madam Chair, that is an introduction—

Mr. Jay Hill: Is that a point of order, Mr. Iftody?

Mr. David Iftody: That's outside of the normal questioning process.

Mr. Jay Hill: I believe I have five minutes. Who's chairing this meeting? You or the chairman?

The Chair: Mr. Hill, you are on for five minutes now to question the witness.

Mr. David Iftody: It's not a question. You know that.

• 0955

The Chair: Excuse me, I will keep order around this table and in this room. Please go ahead with your questioning of the witness. I have already ruled on your supposed point of order this morning, and you've heard that answer. Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Chairman, with all due respect, you ruled this morning that with unanimous consent the committee can do whatever it is.... So I would seek unanimous consent from the committee this morning to allow people from Prince George to appear before the committee.

The Chair: You're out of order. Please go on to your question for the witness.

A voice: Go ahead, Jay, tell them the truth.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a couple of quick questions then, since you won't allow that with your ruling, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Nichol, my understanding is you're not from Prince George. Why would you appear here rather than in Vancouver? How did that come about, that you're appearing here when people from Prince George can't appear here?

A voice: Good question.

Mr. Jack Nichol: First of all, I didn't have anything to do with the selection of witnesses. There were a group of us. There were five who were going to be a panel. There was Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress; Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour; myself; Dave Haggard from the IWA; and Randy Robson from pulp and paper. Actually, we were supposed to go to Ottawa. The meeting was going to be held on November 23, and we got word that it was changed, that we would be meeting here instead, and I certainly preferred that.

The position of Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Fed, is that if he's going to make a statement on behalf of the people of British Columbia, or the workers of British Columbia, then he wants to do it in British Columbia, not in Ontario.

Mr. Jay Hill: I would ask, Mr. Nichol, if you're not a bit uncomfortable with the fact that you're here in Prince George and being given time, as you should be, to state your case on this important issue facing not only British Columbians as a whole but your membership, and yet people from Prince George and organizations like BC in Focus and the Interior Loggers Association are being denied that same right that's been granted to you. I would ask, are you a bit uncomfortable with that?

Mr. Jack Nichol: Am I uncomfortable personally? No, I had nothing to do with the selection of witnesses. But I am maybe uncomfortable with the fact that if this is a national probe into the consequences of the Nisga'a treaty, if it's a matter of members of Parliament going out and hearing from people as to how they view that treaty, then I would say that as broad a perspective should be given to the members of Parliament by as many people as want to speak.

I was asked if I had made presentations before to committees of Parliament. Yes, a great many times, mostly in Ottawa, on request, and sometimes I was invited to appear. Generally it was a matter of the questions there being canvassed rather broadly, and any witnesses who wanted to make presentations were invited to do so.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You have one minute. Go ahead.

Are you sharing your time for the one minute?

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: I thank Mr. Nichol for his last statement, that it should be a broad consultation with as many people as possible giving their input into these hearings and into this issue. I believe you actually believe that. That's why my colleague has asked you why you think someone, a witness like yourself who is not from this area.... If this committee is indeed out to hear the concerns and get the input of people, particularly from Prince George and the north central area of B.C. today at this meeting, why do you think they, this Liberal government, this committee, have denied the people of Prince George an opportunity to speak before this committee? Why do you think they did that?

Mr. Jack Nichol: I don't know. There were in fact—

The Chair: Order please. Mr. Harris, you're rapidly running out of time.

If you wish to answer that question, you may, and if you feel it's not relevant to your testimony, you may not. It's up to you.

Mr. Jack Nichol: I would suppose in Question Period you'd have ample opportunity to place those questions before the ministers who should be responsible for replying.

Mr. Richard Harris: Don't depend on it.

• 1000

Mr. Jack Nichol: In terms of my comfort here, when the new salmon treaty was signed in 1985, I was named to the salmon commission and I served as salmon commissioner for 10 years.

Mr. Richard Harris: Was that under a Liberal government?

The Chair: Mr. Nichol, you don't have to respond.

Mr. Jack Nichol: No, it was actually the Tory government. John Fraser was the minister at that time.

Mr. Richard Harris: Same thing.

Mr. Jack Nichol: I have much respect for—

The Chair: Excuse me. The chair will say that this committee has conducted itself with courtesy around the table for the last number of days between the members and their witnesses and the audience, and we will continue in that manner.

Thank you very much. Your time is now up.

[Translation]

Did you have a question, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Yes.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Claude Bachand: First, I want to tell Mr. Nichol that I'm very happy to be the first one to express the satisfaction I felt as I was listening to his presentation. I'm from Québec. I would have nothing against someone from Québec coming to Prince George to speak about a bill introduced in the House of Commons. I think that if indeed this country extends from sea to sea—as I have often heard my colleagues say so in the House—we must let people come here to express their views.

I can tell you offhand that I'm very open to your approach. I myself used to be a worker and a union representative. I appreciate it when people like you appear before our committee to give evidence and tell us their views on this treaty.

I would also like to inform you, Mr. Nichol, of the way you were chosen to be a witness. By the same token, everyone in this room will learn how the witnesses were chosen.

There came a time when we figured that we should go on a tour of British-Columbia. The government's answer to our proposal was that we might as well hear some witnesses at the same time and it gave us a list of witnesses. Then, the Bloc Québécois and also the Reform Party were given the opportunity to add names to that list. All members of the committee were allowed to suggest the names of people or organizations that they wished to hear as witnesses.

We picked 64 witnesses, but it will be impossible to hear them all while we are in B.C. We will have to go back to Ottawa and complete our hearings through videoconferences.

I want to tell you, Mr. Nichol, that it is quite in order for you to come here to make a presentation and that I appreciated the way you did it. I might have to qualify some of your concerns, but as for your presence here, I must say it is wholly warranted. I have no hesitation in saying publicly that I'm very happy you could make it.

Now, about what you have stated, I would like to hear your response. Certainly, the fact that a certain quantity of fish is already allocated in the Nisga'a treaty can be a matter of concern, but let me remind you that this allocation has been expressed in percentages available. When there is less fish... For example, if I'm allocated 26% of the harvest and the harvest drops to nothing, well, I will be entitled to 26% of nothing.

The biologists who appeared earlier this week to brief us made a presentation I found interesting. They explained that the harvest was allocated not in terms of numbers but in terms of percentages. I think this is a way to protect the resource. It will always be adjusted according to the resource available.

Are you satisfied with this argument? I'll grant you that other claims and other demands will be made, but they will be evaluated as they come in. And they will not be added on. It will be 13%, 26% or 30% depending on the area where they live. The Nisga'a people and others live in the Nass Valley and 26% of available resources found there will belong to them.

I would like to hear your response to my comments, please.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Nichol, the floor is yours.

Mr. Jack Nichol: I suppose we would have been happier had there not been a commercial allocation given to the Nisga'a at all and if none were given to any other first nation.

To do that, if it has the effect of destroying the commercial fishing industry, having an impact on our recreational fisheries, then I think people in the fishing industries are asked to pay a price no other Canadian is being asked to pay. We'll pay our regular share of the cost of land claim settlements, but we'll be paying with our jobs from the fishing industry.

• 1005

I think the Nisga'a thing still enables us as commercial fishermen to fish in area 3, outside of the Nass River. We can still exploit those resources to the extent that this treaty will allow us, and we have to recognize that there are certain rights that are going to be given to the Nisga'a.

But if you were to apply that same thing on the Fraser River with the Sto:Lo, the Cheam, the Musqueam, or the Tsawwassen, all of those bands on the Fraser River.... I think it was a couple of years ago that they took 50% of the fish, and no doubt could have taken more. You perhaps heard from some of the coastal fishermen, some of whom were aboriginal people, complaining about those allocations to people in-river while there was no allocation given to the coastal Indians. What they're saying is give us an allocation, and you can see that 100% plus is not an unrealistic result of what is being done.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy: I'd like to thank you for coming.

The concern you show for conservation seems to be the main one. That is, if we don't manage the fishery overall, there isn't going to be any fish for anybody.

In the Yukon, our fishery was devastated in the last few years. No salmon came up the river. It's a horrible shock for families. I'd like you to elaborate a little bit more on the conservation aspect.

Mr. Jack Nichol: Some of our stocks are really in peril, and again I'll go back to what I said earlier, that we tried to do too much with fish, while at the same time seeing our ability to manage the fisheries diminished by layoffs and downsizing of the Department of Fisheries and the like, with the result that we're going to take many cycles to rebuild the Fraser River.

I have always been fascinated by the Horsefly-Quesnel River system, and I had the great fortune last weekend to visit Williams Lake. On Sunday we took a drive up through to Horsefly and then a place called Likely. It was very interesting what they're doing there.

I am now a director of an organization called Fisheries Renewal B.C. We are financing partner groups in the different areas to work on habitat restoration and fish restoration, not necessarily only salmon but any kind of fish—shellfish on the coast, and the like. So I'm very much involved with the whole question of the rehabilitation of the resource and habitat.

Maybe that explains why I do not feel uncomfortable being here. This area around here, the Nadina, the Nechako, this part of the Fraser River, contributes to the overall stocks of fish. We've studied that throughout the years that I've been with the union, and certainly during the time I've been a commissioner and now a member of the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal B.C.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, do you have some questions?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to thank the speaker for appearing and welcome him to the committee hearings.

You talked a lot about fish, and I'd like to make it very clear that I represent a large fishery riding on the east coast. We still have over 2,000 boats in three counties in that riding in the water. The fishery makes probably about a third of the total income for the riding. As far as total landed fish, we are by far the largest fishery riding in the country at this time. Our boats fish from the eastern Arctic all the way down to the George's Bank and out on the Grand Banks, and in the inshore fishery as well. We have no salmon left on the east coast because of habitat degradation and acid rain and because we caught too many on the high seas, and we developed the Greenland fishery when it should never have been developed.

• 1010

However, you still do have salmon left on the west coast, and I share your concerns that salmon shouldn't be the currency we settle treaties or any issue with. The main concern always needs to be conservation. And we've learned that lesson, certainly on the east coast, in a major way.

At the same time, we're in the middle of the Marshall decision that has come down, which I'm sure you're familiar with, and there seems to be some response by the government that you can settle issues, such as the Marshall decision, with fish. But really, the Marshall decision is about aboriginal title and it's a lot more than fish. As a logger, I'll say that we have to look at some crown-based resources such as logging, mining, fish—a whole area of things.

I totally agree, and I think it needs to be reiterated, with your statement about the Supreme Court of Canada. We can go back to Calder, through to Sparrow, up to the Delgamuukw, and on to the Marshall decision, and all the ones in between. I hate the “us” and “them” language, but quite frankly, first nations have done extremely well in the Supreme Court of Canada and we have not. What we have to do is look at some different ways of doing that, and outside of the treaty process I don't see any different way of doing it.

The trouble with the negotiations is that they don't always suit everybody in the end.

I'd like to talk a little bit about that 26% of the TAC. I think, from my information—and we've put a lot of time and effort into studying this treaty—the minister can say whatever he wants, but the treaty is the treaty, and the wording, the language, and the meaning within the bounds of that treaty do not change. I may be corrected on this—and I'll seek legal information later—but certainly the Nisga'a have 26% of the TAC on the Nass River, and those rights are protected by treaty. However, it states very clearly that this 26% of the TAC can't be there ahead of any other commercial interest; it's along with other commercial interest.

A voice: What about the 97%—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: And I'll speak to the witness, Madam Chair—

The Chair: Yes, you will.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: —and only the witness. The witness is before me and I can't speak to anyone else.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that we can't settle this only with fish, only with land, only with dollars, or only with anything else. But on the TAC, as I understand it within the treaty, that's how it works. So I think you're protected, and the minister can't change that.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: Again, it works on a river system like the Nass. And it's not only Nass River people who fish that area. People from down south go north, if they're licensed for the north, and fish in area 3.

The treaty talks about 13% of the sockeye and 15% of the pink salmon. Then there is a mix of other fish—chinook, coho, and chum—that can make up the balance of their catch. They can mix that fish, take more sockeye and fewer pinks, in order to get the share the treaty entitles them to. I suppose it works. We still have a fishery there. There will not be a commercial fishery if there is not a fishable surplus. I have one complaint about that situation: it's a percentage of the total allowable catch in Canada, and it doesn't have any effect on the American fishermen who intercept those fish in southeast Alaska as they're headed for the Nass River.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Jack Nichol: The treaty doesn't—

A voice: Another deal by the Liberal government.

Mr. Jack Nichol: The TAC is 16% of the—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Nichol. I'm going to ask the audience...we're having trouble hearing right now, even with a hearing device on, so would you please keep it down so we can hear the witnesses. If you wish to talk, I'd suggest there's a place outside the room, so we can hear the witnesses before us. Thank you very much.

Go ahead and finish your answer, Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: I don't know if there's any more you want on it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The 16% of the TAC—that's what's in the treaty—is the total TAC, including what's caught in Alaska on the high seas as well.

• 1015

If I have time, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask one more question. If not, I'll wait until the second round.

The Chair: No, you don't have time. But there's a lot of time left for the round, unless our other two people show.

Mr. Finlay, please commence.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly wanted to thank you, Mr. Nichol, for appearing.

I have your brief, and although I wasn't able to read it all before you spoke, I have read most of it. I'm struck by your long involvement and knowledge of these negotiations and certainly of fisheries, which helps us all to understand.

I'm just going to take the time, Mr. Nichol to read the first paragraph of this brief, because I think it might help all of us and our audience to understand this point of view, with which, Mr. Nichol, I wholeheartedly agree:

At its meeting in the Fall of 1998 the General Executive Board of the UFAWU made a decision to not oppose the Nisga'a Treaty, stopping short possibly of giving it an unqualified endorsation. First there is the reality that we could not defeat the Treaty by our own efforts and secondly, should the Treaty be defeated what would take its place. Critics of the Treaty demand a referendum in an almost total absence of objectivity? Force a referendum and defeat the Treaty by sheer and unfounded hysteria and a lack of meaningful debate.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Order, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Finlay.

Order. That is the last time I will ask. If one person has to take away from the whole room's ability to hear, we'll have to deal with that. I would prefer not to. So let us go ahead.

Go ahead, Mr. Finlay. You were reading, and I will give you your time back that has been taken.

Mr. John Finlay: To continue:

Within the negotiating process a referendum by non natives was never envisaged. To compel one at this stage would destroy the process itself and negotiations are the preferable option to the courts being the arbiter in a winner take all procedure. It is the major court cases like Sparrow and Delgamuukw that have given impetus to negotiations to resolve the multitude of land claims awaiting resolution in British Columbia. Jamming our senior courts and provoking confrontation is not an acceptable way of determining the scope of aboriginal and non aboriginal rights in B.C.

I thank the UFAWU and you, Mr. Nichol, for such an objective and I think correct assessment of the situation.

You mentioned in your presentation that we should not use this treaty as a template. We have heard as we've gone around, and from people in Ottawa already, that most people who understand first nations and their desires to negotiate treaties realize that they do it in a very independent fashion. They are not going to accept or be satisfied with the template for the Nisga'a.

We heard from the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow, and they want to make their own deal. So I don't think we need to worry too much about that.

You mentioned an interesting thing. You said that we've lost control of our fishery, and there was some blame on the federal government and the DFO. Then you mentioned the downsizing of the DFO, and I took that to mean you thought that was one of the reasons we had lost control.

Now I want to know, does that mean we don't have enough fisheries officers on the west coast to police the fishery, or does it mean we're not doing enough scientific work on how to maintain and increase the fishery? Do you have a comment for me on that?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: I couldn't give you the numbers of what we had before and what we have now. Under the aboriginal fisheries strategy, there was money available to certain first nations to do their own policing. There may be certain circumstances under which I would agree to people in the industry policing themselves, but only if there were penalties provided and whatever. I don't agree with it for aboriginal people, and I don't agree with it for non-aboriginal people.

• 1020

To give you an example, I was up-coast in 1992. We chartered a boat in the summer months in order to get out among the fleet to do our organizational work. I was asked if I wanted to go up to help bring the boat back from Alert Bay. I went up, and we heard a lot of talk on the radio. This was a Saturday, and people were talking about fishing, about getting some fish here and getting some fish there, that, yes, fishing is pretty good here, or whatever.

We recognized some of the voices as members of our union, vessel owners we were acquainted with. There were Indian voices talking as well. We asked what was going on and said there was no fishery, there was no opening on this Saturday. What there was, was an aboriginal fishery. The feelings were running so high that the non-aboriginal people said that if the aboriginals were going to fish, they were going to go fishing too. To protect themselves, they took an Indian as a crew member aboard a seine boat or a gillnetter, and the whole fleet was out fishing.

On Sunday night, the regular commercial fishery opened at 6 p.m. The seines fished what daylight was left, and early in the morning, at 9 a.m., they were delivering to the packers. The packers had to hail DFO and say what was being delivered. They were getting 6,000, 8,000, 9,000 fish, which would indicate that, in the very short fishery since the commercial time was opened, there was a huge abundance of fish. They then gave them more fishing time. When that happened in 1994, we were taught by John Fraser's study that we were 12 hours away from fishing out the entire run.

When I got back to town, I phoned Pat Chamut. He was the regional director here, and I asked him what the hell was going on up in Johnstone Strait. I told him that everybody was fishing up there. He didn't know what was going on up there. I told him it scared me when the chief enforcer out here didn't know what was going on.

There was just chaos. That's the kind of thing that was happening. We certainly overfished in 1992, and probably in 1994 again. DFO tells us they got the escapement, but I'm not so sure they did. I think those are the factors that led to the decline in the stocks.

The Chair: We're going to go to the next round.

Mr. Gouk, are you sharing your time, or are you taking it? Okay, Mr. Hill first, and then Mr. Gouk. Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just want to begin by stating that in the opening paragraph of your brief—which Mr. Finlay read out for the benefit of everybody in the room—you ask what would take its place if the treaty was defeated in a referendum, or in a vote in Parliament, presumably. You pose that question. I would suggest what Reform has been fighting for and why a lot of people in British Columbia have been speaking about very volubly on the issue. It would be a very clearly defined treaty process in which negotiators would get a proper mandate to begin with from the people of British Columbia and Canada.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Jay Hill: That would really deliver finality, not this mess that we have for the native people and for all Canadians and British Columbians. It would very clearly define the principle of equality as the objective, and it would result in a municipal style of government, not this undefined third order of government that is enshrined in this existing treaty.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Jay Hill: I suggest to you, in light of your brief, that those are the types of principles that the treaty process should be based upon, and not only for all British Columbians and Canadians. I also include in that the native people and in this case the Nisga'a people themselves.

In your brief as well you ask why the Nisga'a treaty should be supported. You say:

The Nisga'a Treaty is a done deal and neither the federal government or the provincial government will back away from what has been done.

If that's truly the position of you and your membership, why are you appearing today?

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Nichol, the floor is yours.

• 1025

Mr. Jack Nichol: First of all, I want to make it clear that this is not a brief that was written for a presentation here. It was a paper that was written for the union's convention in January of last year. We're talking about what needs to be done from here on in. If you read further—and I considered taking those paragraphs out—what we should be doing—

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Jack Nichol: It is a document that belongs to the organization, but those paragraphs were left in there. They're saying that we have to mobilize people, that we have to get out there and make darn sure the Nisga'a treaty isn't a template, that the fishing industry is going to be sacrificial lamb. That's what we were saying in there.

Why do I appear here? We had an invitation to do that. I bring to this group the idea that the union does in fact support the Nisga'a treaty. I think you'll be hearing from the labour movement, the senior labour bodies, and when you meet with them—

A voice: [Editor's Note—Inaudible]

The Chair: Excuse me for one moment, please.

I'm going to make this very clear. When people ask a question, they wait for the answer and they listen to the answer. I will then give them the floor if there is more time to have another question.

Mr. Jay Hill: But with all due respect, Madam Chair—

The Chair: You have to show a little respect, Mr. Hill. I just let you—

Mr. Jay Hill: [Editor's Note—Inaudible]

The Chair: Mr. Hill, you're out of order.

Please go ahead, Mr. Nichol.

A voice: What about giving Prince George some respect?

A voice: All the people of this area.

The Chair: Mr. Nichol, go ahead whenever you would like. I will hold the time for you to answer.

Mr. Jack Nichol: Why am I here? Our organization represents fishermen, workers in the plants, and the people working as fish packers—

A voice: We have a ton of fishermen up here in Prince George.

Mr. Jack Nichol: —and vessels that deliver fish to the packing plants. In Prince Rupert, about two-thirds of the people working in shore plants are of native Indian extraction. They are Haida, they are Gitxsan, they're Tsimshian, and they're Nisga'a. A lot of native fishermen have belonged to the union. Over the years, long before the treaty process, long before the issue of land claims heated up, long before the provincial government committed itself to being a part of the settlement of land claims, we supported the idea consistently of supporting the settlement of land claims in a just and equitable way. That's what I'm doing here. I'm telling you that I have no political purpose in being here. We were invited to express our view and that's what we're doing.

The Chair: Mr. Gouk, technically you're out of time, but I'm going to allow you a short question and a very short answer.

Mr. Jim Gouk: If I'm down to one, I would also refer to the document. It says there shouldn't be a referendum because there's been a lack of meaningful debate in order for people to make that decision. It was cut off in the provincial legislature without full debate, time allocation has been used in the House of Commons, and now, when we come here to hear what the people of Prince George have to say, we're listening to somebody from Vancouver. That's another place we are going to go to. Do you think it's fair for you to travel here and take time away from Prince George people, instead of telling the committee that you'll stick to your original agenda in Vancouver and allow people here to speak? Do you feel comfortable?

Voices: Right on!

Mr. Jack Nichol: Yes, I feel comfortable.

I've already explained that this area here, down through Williams Lake and the Horsefly-Quesnel system.... I never heard people in Prince George complaining when the union was mounting a major campaign to fight the Kemano development and the destruction of the fishery houses on the Nechako River.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Is it my turn now?

[English]

The Chair: No, that's correct. It's Mr. Iftody's turn. We're in the second round.

For the people just joining, we alternate after the first round of questions.

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, and welcome, Mr. Nichol, to this committee. To all those other good folks who are here today, we welcome you as well.

• 1030

Mr. Nichol, I wanted to pick up on something you mentioned with regard to the whole question of certainty. If I recall correctly, you mentioned the notion of extinguishment and that there is a Manitoba judge who had been doing some work for the province or for the organization. I'm wondering whether that was Justice Hamilton from Manitoba, because I'm familiar with Justice Hamilton's work and have myself done some research on this whole topic.

This is an important one, obviously, because what we're all looking for in this process is a provision of certainty for Canadians and all the people involved in these very complicated disputes and discussions. We all want to have certainty, and part of that is the whole notion of extinguishment.

Could you, sir, help this committee in its deliberations and elaborate on some of your thoughts and musings on that legal concept?

A voice: It would be nice to provide a voice for the people of the north.

The Chair: Mr. Nichol.

Mr. Jack Nichol: Well, maybe it's an unrealistic achievement, but as we sit down and negotiate land claims settlements with the different first nations, I would like to think....

And it isn't going to happen only here in British Columbia. When you look at self-government and some of the other factors, including the protection of aboriginal rights, I think this is going to go right across Canada and take the place of treaties that have been in existence for a couple of hundred years.

I firmly believe the negotiation of land claims can't be a generational thing such that we do it now and in 10 or 20 years there's another claim and we have to settle that—that is, ongoing negotiations. I believe in the concept that undefined aboriginal rights should be replaced by treaty rights. If that happens, then you wouldn't have the claim for ongoing aboriginal rights; you would have surrendered those rights.

But that wording is anathema to the aboriginal people. They don't want any suggestion of extinguishment, of replacing their aboriginal rights, of surrendering their rights. That language has all been absolutely rejected. I don't know how we get around it.

One of our problems is that the negotiators, whenever they get an objection to this, seem to back up and back up. Justice Hamilton wrote a report, and his findings were pretty much ignored.

A voice: [Editor's Note—Inaudible]

Mr. Jack Nichol: His main theme was this idea of replacing aboriginal rights, undefined as they were, with treaty rights. That got pretty short shrift, and I think at some point the negotiators representing Canada and British Columbia are going to have to really be firm on this, that this isn't going to be a growth industry that is ongoing through generation after generation, hostility after hostility and the like. There has to be closure to this somewhere. Otherwise, let's go to court and let's fight it out in the courts.

The Chair: There's a point of order from Mr. Harris.

Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sure you won't have a problem with this point of order.

This room is very warm. There are inadequate chairs for members of the public who are standing. There are actually people coming and leaving because they think there's no room in here.

If it's possible, perhaps the committee could consider one of two options. One, open up this doorway, because the room is empty next door, or two, move those tables and put some chairs there so that the people of Prince George can at least listen in comfort, considering they are not allowed to speak.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Harris, I see that there are empty chairs even though there are people standing. I would invite people to take these. We will ask for more seats when we adjourn at our break, which is coming up in 10 minutes.

Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you.

The Chair: Earlier this morning I had more seats added, and we can easily accommodate adding more seats.

I would invite people who are standing and who wish to sit just to take seats at the available chairs right there.

Thank you very much.

We'll continue with Mr. Bachand.

• 1035

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Nichol, I want to reiterate that I have a lot of respect for the way you stay cool. I know that this is your presentation and that it is not an easy one to make. I also know that it is never easy to stay focused when the going gets rough. But I know that you used to work for a union, so you've experienced a stormy meeting before and you know a thing or two about how to behave when such a thing happens. I find that you stay remarkably composed amid all this boisterousness.

I want to say also that I have tremendous respect for the labour representative because, in my mind, it is another form of democratic expression. Democracy in our society is not exercised only in the Canadian Parliament or in the B.C. or Québec legislatures. It is also exercised within unions. I have known one where democracy was carried quite far. Often, labour representatives must convey views that do not necessarily agree with their own personal opinion. They are required to act as messengers.

I take it that you also have a problem with certainty. You wonder whether these claims will finally stop coming. On that point, Bloc Québécois MPs figure that as long as there won't be a treaty between first nations and white people, there will be uncertainty. Once you have a treaty such as this one, uncertainty gives way to growing certainty. This treaty has clauses on what happens with forestry and fisheries and on how to reconcile the interests of the various governments, including the Nisga'a government.

Do you agree with me that one of the best ways to attain certainty is by signing such treaties which may in fact vary from one first nation to the next?

Here we have a specific treaty. There's no doubt that another first nation might want a different treaty. It will then be up to the government and negotiators to make the representations needed to design treaties that can attain this level of certainty. Do you feel that signing treaties with first nations would be the ideal way to achieve certainty?

[English]

Mr. Jack Nichol: I think treaties would be the preferred option. There's no question about that. You can read that treaty—and I would think the Nisga'a people were sincere when they signed that treaty—that this then defines their rights vis-à-vis the rights of non-aboriginal Canadians. It deals with the land they're going to get, the amount of money they're going to get, access to resources, and those types of things.

That's fine. The Nisga'a, I think, have accepted that idea, that there is finality there, although when you read the treaty you see a whole number of references, if there's a dispute with regard to this or that—and generally those are the things that are going to come under aboriginal self-government—to the disputes going to a tribunal. So you could find that there are many uncertainties in the document as well.

It's like the court cases—Sparrow, for example, which was the great Supreme Court of Canada decision that defined the aboriginal rights. This all started over an aboriginal from the Musqueam reserve at the mouth of the Fraser River using a net that was longer than had been agreed to on his permit. It went to the Supreme Court of Canada and they came out with a huge judgment.

Non-aboriginals will look at it and say, well, that's not bad, we can live with that, or else the judge shouldn't have done this, but the aboriginal people will say, well, lock, stock, and barrel, it's all ours. We run the fishery now. We own the fishery and the like.

So you get these broad interpretations. In the absence of real definition in the court decisions, you get these challenges—you know, “We can fish any time we want.” They did this on the east coast. They just went out and fished lobsters even in the face of closures, when laws of general application are supposed to apply. It was interpreted that they had the unfettered right to go out there and fish any time they wanted. Well, if that occurs you're going to lose your lobster fishery back on the east coast.

• 1040

What we need to do is impress upon aboriginal people that if we are going to sign treaties, then they have to accept the idea that these treaties are in fact final and that representations aren't going to continue to be made, and demonstrative actions such as roadblocks, blocking railways, and that kind of thing are not going to be the order of the day.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Our final questioner for this round is Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Madam Chair. With your permission, Mr. O'Brien and I will split the five minutes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: He's not here. Can I do it?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I mean Mr. O'Reilly. They both sit behind me in the House.

The Chair: Two Irishmen.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I apologize.

My question will be very brief. I have been involved in negotiations on both sides of the table, and I know Monsieur Bachand has been very involved, and I see now that you have also throughout your life. Negotiation is a process of discussion, communication, and give and take in order to get the best deal for the participants and the stakeholders.

Have you ever been involved and would you ever get involved in a negotiation where one of the parties makes all the rules? The official opposition have suggested how they would do it, and the way I see it, all the rules would be predetermined by one of the three parties, and the others need only follow.

A voice: The Liberal government does that already.

A voice: It's being determined right now.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Would you enter into negotiations under those principles?

Mr. Jack Nichol: Obviously not. As a matter of fact, we would go to negotiations insisting that our position be the dominant one, not the company's. But those are labour negotiations, and they're infinitely more simple than the very, very complex role of treaty negotiations with aboriginal people. It is, I've maintained, the most serious socioeconomic problem we have in Canada today, with all due respect to Quebec.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. O'Reilly, please.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you very much, Mr. Nichol, for appearing. We appreciate your words.

You referred in your statement to the overfishing in 1992-1994. You indicated that the native people started the commercial fishery and everybody else went in. In light of the fact that the minister has said there will be a conservation-based fishery or no fishery at all, and in light of the fact that the Nisga'a are subject to provincial and federal law, along with DFO and whatever other people are doing it, do you think the treaty process will solve or complicate that process?

My other question is, what would you recommend to improve the process of treaty negotiations?

A voice: Give a vote.

Mr. Jack Nichol: First of all, on that fish question, I hope the treaty will work in the case of the Nisga'a, and I have some confidence it will, but I'm not so sure that formula would work in any other area of the coast.

A voice: Why not give the people...[Editor's Note—Inaudible]...a vote on that as well?

Mr. Jack Nichol: What would I do to improve the process? You have as many people as you can actually make workable on TNAC now, but there is another part of TNAC that I haven't referred to, and nobody else has, and that's the regional advisory councils.

There are regional advisory councils in every area of British Columbia where land claims are being done. For a while I was on some of those RACs, as we call them—regional advisory councils—but I found the work of trying to run the union and being on TNAC and then the RACs as well was far too onerous.

We encouraged our members to get people on these RACs. They're the ones who are going to do the slogging down at the treaty level. We had to get people who weren't going to just come one day and never again. We had to get people who were dedicated to the thing, who were going to be there at every one of those RAC meetings and make a real study of it, who were going to have a network that would work with me as the representative of those people sitting on TNAC, and we could communicate then both ways what was happening.

• 1045

We talk about democracy in all of this. Clearly we have to do something to settle land claims and bring an end to the trouble we've had in Canada and the black eye we're getting internationally and the like.

I would wonder how many people here have sat on these RACs in their local area and participated, in a democratic way, in the development of these treaties. They're wide open, and I know there are some very willing people who've devoted an awful lot of time to it. These things are open to the public.

One of the things we argued for in TNAC was that it be an open process—

A voice: If they're so great, let's vote on it.

Mr. Jack Nichol: —open to the public.

A voice: No, they weren't.

The Chair: Order.

Mr. Jack Nichol: Then the provincial government did in fact open up these sessions to the public.

They're long, drawn-out processes. It's something like watching paint dry. The media just took an absolute hands-off position. They won't go near it. Nobody is going to turn on a television camera and watch hours and hours of a rather dry, complicated debate, but that's the way to practise democracy if you want it. That's where you meet with your negotiators and that's where you can have some influence.

A voice: That's a hypocritical statement.

The Chair: Mr. Nichol, I want to thank you for your testimony. I appreciate all of the evidence you've been able to put before us to help us understand this.

The committee will now take a break before our next witness, scheduled at 11 o'clock.

Again I will say to anyone wishing to have a brief presented, please give them to the clerks, either here at the table or at the back.

Thank you very much. The meeting is suspended for 15 minutes or so, until we see our next witness.

• 1047

• 1117

The Chair: Please be seated in the audience. We will start the rest of the meeting.

The second witness today is Mr. Les Husband.

There is a person in the audience who has been asked to be seated. Questions will not be entertained from the audience. Thank you. That is my ruling.

The witness, Mr. Les Husband, has the floor. There are many chairs in the room, as requested.

A voice: [Editor's Note—Inaudible]

The Chair: I will be quiet and try to start this meeting as soon as the other person is quieter.

A voice: [Editor's Note—Inaudible]

The Chair: Suspend for two minutes until we have quiet. Thank you.

We will go again.

Mr. Les Husband, welcome to this committee. You have the floor to do your presentation. I will just announce that the second witness today was to have been the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. Last night they let us know they were only sending the brief. The brief is to the committee and has been circulated to the table representatives.

Mr. Les Husband, please commence your presentation.

Mr. Les Husband (President, British Columbia Wildlife Foundation): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

First, because the other witness won't be appearing, I'm prepared to extend my brief. I made it fairly short, expecting to share time here, so I could make a few extra comments at the end.

The Chair: Mr. Husband, you can take the time you need to present your brief. Then the committee will take the time to ask the questions. This is time allotted for you and the cattlemen, who have chosen to just send their brief. We can utilize this time with you and give due attention to your testimony. Thank you.

Go ahead

Mr. Les Husband: Our focus is primarily on the resource sector, as the name of our organization, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, implies. That is the intent of my brief here.

• 1120

Good morning. I'd like to take a moment to give a brief background on our organization in order to show where our primary interests lie in regard to treaty negotiations in general and for the purpose of this hearing, the Nisga'a Final Agreement.

The B.C. Wildlife Federation is our province's oldest and largest voluntary conservation organization, consisting of approximately 145 fish and game clubs throughout British Columbia and 34,000 members. Our federation is the only organization that speaks on behalf of the over 525,000 remaining outdoor enthusiasts in the province, including hunters and anglers.

Since 1986, the B.C. Wildlife Federation anticipated the implications of the comprehensive claims issue, as it was known at that time, in terms of fish, wildlife, and resource management. We believed first nations issues needed resolution and negotiations and treaties were the best route for the solution. We have supported the treaty process ever since.

The Nisga'a treaty, however, has several aspects with province-wide implications. These include the process used to negotiate the treaty and the implications of implementing terms of certain chapters, to the point where we have trouble supporting them. Even though the Nisga'a treaty is a done deal, with the opportunity for changes probably long passed, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a few points, as there is not enough time today to address all the concerns in any kind of detail.

The Nisga'a treaty was not negotiated with third-party involvement, which we consider to be the major flaw. Non-aboriginal people of this province, and especially of the northeast region, have as much an interest in the resources and how they are used and managed as any other party. I don't see how governments can act on our behalf or their behalf. The current negotiating process involves third parties, and the negotiators from both governments have welcomed advice, local information, and experience to assist them. We think that has been a very favourable step forward.

The structure and duties of the wildlife committee, as applied to the wildlife management area, are of serious concern to our organization. The duties of this committee duplicate many management responsibilities of the wildlife branch and could very well bring about a new wildlife management regime.

The BCWF has serious doubts about how such a committee could function. It is not representative of the groups that use wildlife and share in its management. This committee has no apparent links with the existing wildlife management process, nor does it have any linkage with land and resource planning processes for the area.

While the minister retains responsibility for wildlife, harvest and harvest objectives are established through the final agreement. When this model is projected for other treaties, with extensive management areas overlapping claims, use by non-natives, more complex wildlife management requirements, and the need to integrate with other resources, the result will be confusion and much more red tape than we presently have.

A much better model would be to use existing regional advisory committees comprised of first nations, third parties, and resource agencies. These resources must continue to be shared amongst all users, and the only way to accomplish this is by participating on the same committees together.

The provincial ministry, in a recent speech, stated that the province did not support co-jurisdiction, but could support co-management. We do not agree. The two are joint processes, and in the Nisga'a wildlife chapter it is our view that it includes co-management and, in doing so, co-jurisdiction. It is our opinion that government must be the sole authority.

The trade and barter of fish and wildlife and their parts amongst aboriginal users cause us concern. We do not know how it will be administered, who will make the decisions, who will record the transfer of wildlife off Nisga'a lands, and how a paper trail will be provided to other parties, especially for items that leave Nisga'a jurisdiction.

Second, we are very concerned about enforcement. Who will receive the administrative paperwork? Without checks in place, the opportunity to benefit from trade, barter, and sale of fish and wildlife is very real. It is something our organization works hard to prevent.

The taking of wildlife under the guise of domestic use but for monetary gain is a very serious issue. We require confidence that enforcement of the laws of general application can be accomplished and will ensure that wildlife taken for domestic purposes will not enter the illegal market.

Our greatest concern is the apparent lack of foresight by both governments in setting entitlements for both fish and wildlife and the impact this will have when all treaties have been settled within the province.

• 1125

Entitlements for wildlife have been set without considering future overlaps, future treaties. This will seriously impact other first nations and especially non-aboriginal residents of this province. The concept of sharing the resource is missing from the Nisga'a negotiating process.

This is even more evident in the fisheries chapter and the allocations of salmon in the Nisga'a territory. Was any thought given to the entitlement of future treaty settlements on top of the Nisga'a settlement in relation to the opportunity for resident anglers? Does the federal government know what the sporting requirements are for the systems contained within this area?

The BCWF is very concerned that treaties are being dealt with on an individual basis with very little thought and with a long-term effect on the province when all the treaties are complete.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Les Husband: Along with this, we are very concerned about the process of implementation. Through our correspondence with both governments, we do not yet have a firm commitment on a process that will be used for implementing treaties in the future.

As you are probably aware, the main concerns for the BCWF with Nisga'a are around fish and wildlife and the continued access and opportunity for the residents of British Columbia, including their interaction with habitat and other resources. We believe there are problems with aspects of this treaty and are hopeful that they will not be applied as a template in future treaty negotiations.

We also have a real issue with the term “certainty”, relating back to our provincial minister's recent speech. One of the primary issues around why we got involved in treaty negotiations was unregulated harvest; I just mean harvest that wasn't under our regulations, meaning non-first nations. We feel that treaties will bring certainty to the issue of unauthorized or unregulated resource use, and we firmly hope that will be an end result.

I have included just at the back of my brief some short policy statements from our federation, which maybe clarify the positions that we take when we are participating in treaty negotiations. They are very broad-based statements, but they are ones that we ask our membership to use when sitting on regional bargaining committees at this time; they are points and positions that we take and have taken with Nisga'a.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. Did you wish those to be read into the record, then?

Mr. Les Husband: I think they're probably applicable.

The Chair: Okay. That can then be read into the record as said. Thank you.

Mr. Harris is going to go first.

Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Mr. Hill.

Mr. Husband, I've listened to your comments. Your very last comments will form part of my question. You made the comment that treaties should bring certainty to a number of things you mentioned. That's one of the main concerns of the Reform Party: that there in fact is not any finality or certainty under this agreement. While our Liberal colleagues and colleagues from the Bloc, the NDP, and the Tories talk about finality, the fact is that clearly there is no finality.

The treaty document itself speaks of that. I'll just read it. It says that if in effect the treaty does not meet the expectations of the Nisga'a such as compared with an agreement with any other aboriginal person or group, then the Nisga'a can receive additional or replacement rights under this treaty. There is no finality to that.

I want to also let you know—and my colleagues here cannot disagree with this—that as we speak, all across this country where treaties are in fact in place and have been for decades, one by one, two by two, and three by three, they're being opened up again for further negotiation of the unmentioned crown land that surrounds these treaty areas. As we speak, Treaty No. 8, just to the north of us, is being opened up again for further negotiation.

So when the government speaks of finality in this treaty, if it is not the words in the treaty itself that dispute that, then the experience we have in Canada all across this country with regard to crown land is evidence that there is no finality, no certainty, in this treaty.

I'd like you to respond to that.

Voices: Hear, hear!

• 1130

The Chair: Mr. Husband, go ahead, please.

Mr. Les Husband: Okay. May I be brief?

The Chair: If you aren't brief, Mr. Harris will have to go for his other round. Go ahead.

Mr. Les Husband: We're aware of some of the older treaties that are being reopened. Douglas comes to mind at present also.

One of the fundamental issues that our organization supports...and people can look at it as being somewhat selfish, but I think this is the way it is. We live in the interior, in the north, primarily because we are resource users, whether we're hunters and anglers or loggers. That's a way of life we enjoy. When we're talking about certainty around those resources, I think that's something our group is adamant on: it has to be written into treaties. We cannot go down this road for many more years. You and I and the aboriginals of this province are not the ones that are going to be suffering—it's going to be our resources.

That's the reason we're here. We're here because we enjoy our fish, our wildlife, and our timber. Unless we can bring some certainty to the use, to the sharing of the resources, and have that set down in treaties...and that's the guise that we're working under, that treaties will bring that certainty. If it's not there, it'll be very difficult for our membership to support.

We're here because we enjoy that use. According to the Constitution, at present first nations have the opportunity before us. It's going to be us who lose our opportunity, and I don't think that's acceptable.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: You have less than a minute, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

I'm informed I have less than a minute—

The Chair: Well, you're splitting your time, as I understand it, so that is the rule—unless you'd like to pass and have Mr. Harris take his minute.

Mr. Jay Hill: No, it's fine.

The Chair: Fine. Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: As long as we're sure of the rules.

The Chair: Well, we're sure of the rules. Excuse me for a second.

Order. I will clarify this. People are allowed to split their time, but that does not increase the time. This is not going to be a situation that by splitting the time you get two rounds of five minutes as opposed to one round of five minutes, because that's not fair. So we will have one minute.

Go ahead, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Richard Harris: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I know you're trying to keep everyone to five minutes, but in fact, in Mr. Finlay's question, the total time was seven minutes and 40 seconds. I would suggest that a precedent has been set. I would suggest that if you plan on cutting the witness off at five minutes, have a little regard for the precedent that has been set this morning.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: The chair will remind all people in the room that the only time extended was when there was audience interruption, and I gave back the time. We will go with that.

Voices: Oh, oh!

A voice: Way to go, Chair.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have two quick questions, Mr. Husband.

As I said, I appreciate the fact that you came to appear before the committee and that you're someone local, with a local perspective.

First, it's not really clear in your brief and your comments: does your organization support the treaty as it now exists?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Husband.

Mr. Les Husband: I think because of the problems we have with especially three chapters—access, wildlife, and fisheries—we would have trouble with our membership supporting the treaty as it exists right now.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you.

Second—

The Chair: No. That's a minute over.

Mr. Jay Hill: That wasn't a minute, Madam Chair.

The Chair: You're at six minutes and 16 seconds. Sorry.

Go ahead and—

A voice: On a point of order, Madam Chair—

A voice: Come on!

The Chair: Order! Excuse me.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand, do you have any questions?

Mr. Claude Bachand: No.

[English]

A voice: How can you be fair if you're Liberal?

Mr. Richard Harris: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, the time when Mr. Hill began to speak and the time when the witness finished his comments amounted to about 46 seconds. The extra time that you're talking about was the time you must have included while you were making your comments. There was no way that Mr. Hill and Mr. Husband together used up a minute of time. It was 46 seconds.

• 1135

The Chair: The clerk keeps the time for me. It's not me that keeps the time.

Sorry, we will go on. You do not have a point of order. Let's go on and do the rounds.

A voice: How could a Liberal sit as a chairperson?

The Chair: To make sure we don't get into this, I will now rule that I will take five minutes for the rest of this hearing from one of our members only. So there will no longer be splitting during this hearing today. Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Okay.

Mr. Husband, looking at your brief, I understand that you are concerned. This is the feeling that I get from reading it.

I'm trying to see whether our views can be reconciled, because it seems to me that the courts have left only one avenue open to us and that is to negotiate. And having been involved in negotiations for 20 years, I know that you can never win 100% of your demands. I just wanted to repeat the gist of the Supreme Court decisions that all point to the same recommendation: negotiate, negotiate and negotiate.

The great Frank Calder was probably the first to create an opening when he had his aboriginal fishing rights recognized. These people have often made the courts rule on legal issues by doing things that were illegal according to the white man's law, thus forcing the Supreme Court of Canada to decide which party was right.

Mr. Calder, in my opinion, made the first opening that was made bigger and bigger by others who came after him. You hear about the Sparrow case and the Gladstone case that extended the aboriginal rights to commercial fisheries. And, most recently, there is the Marshall case that sparked many incidents on the East Coast. The aboriginal people now want to extend their rights to natural resources, etc.

I suggest that the only way out of this predicament—as the Court has stated in each of its decisions in relevant cases—is to negotiate. And negotiations can never achieve completely satisfying results.

[English]

A voice: So let us all negotiate.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: What we have here, however, is the outcome of those negotiations. There are clauses in there on fisheries, on migratory birds, on fish management, on forestry, etc.

Are you not willing to agree that the best way to achieve land-sharing agreements with the first nations, whether in B.C. or elsewhere in Canada, is certainly not by going through the Supreme Court but rather by negotiating? If conservation is also a concern for you, well in this treaty here, salmon conservation for example allows 18% or 26% of the harvest as per the estimates made by departments and governments. If fish resources go down, so will the amount harvested by the Nisga'a.

It seems to me that what we have here is a perfect example of a trade-off between what the first nations asked for and what the white people wanted to give. We have before us today the outcome, the conclusion of the negotiations. I think this is the only way to come to a lasting agreement.

How do you respond to my comments?

Voices: Oh, oh!

[English]

The Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

May I have the audience withhold? Please be quiet in the audience so we can hear the answer to the questions. Thank you.

Mr. Husband, go ahead.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Please be quiet in the audience right now, please.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: We are suspending.

• 1139

• 1140

The Chair: The meeting will commence again. Please reset the clock so the person can have adequate time without interruption again. Thank you.

Mr. Husband, go ahead. I'm sorry for the interruption.

Mr. Les Husband: I'd like to try to respond to the questions that were posed by the member.

Absolutely, and I did say it in my brief, our organization supports the treaty process. Part of that treaty process is negotiations, and we do support negotiations as we feel strongly that this is the only way certainty will be brought to many of these issues.

We definitely do not deny the legal rights that the aboriginal people have and that have been established through the courts of law. We're not going to go down that road. They've been established. What we are concerned about is that the negotiators who are acting on our behalf, and especially the Nisga'a, when we weren't there for advice—that they recognize that we, the residents of this province, also want some rights and some opportunities.

Our largest concern comes where entitlements and allocations have been set, where we feel very strongly that the impacts of future treaties and the allocations that go along with those have not been factored into the first allocations. We could possibly have a situation where.... I'd like to use as an example, just outside our door here, the Fraser, where—I'm not sure what the exact number is—there are 40-some bands involved in negotiations, and 96 total. There, if we're not careful with allocations to those bands along this system, we will allocate more fish than there are in the river.

Conservation comes into play—I agree 100% with you—and first nations allocations come second, but we still have to have room for the residents of this province. That's what I don't think has been a primary goal in negotiating Nisga'a, partially due, maybe primarily due, to the fact that third parties weren't involved for advice.

Voices: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bachand, you have two minutes.

[English]

Mr. Jim Gouk: I have a point of order. Madam Chair, for the sake of ensuring, even amongst my own colleagues, that they are not unreasonable in bringing up questions of time, I have been watching it very closely with a very expensive and accurate recording piece. I took time out as soon as you intervened and I reconvened when you told the clerk to start, and we're now past the five-minute point.

The Chair: The clerk here has.... I told them to go back and give him the time for the interruption. I cannot help it when the audience interrupts, and I ordered in my discretion that he gets time. The time is here and it is at two minutes.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Well, that is the chair's ruling when the audience interrupts, and I would suggest that—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: The chair is speaking.

Mr. Richard Harris: Point of order.

A voice: You are not being properly... [Inaudible—Editor] ...for a chairperson.

The Chair: If I have to clear this room, it also means the media gets cleared. Canadians across this land would like to follow this, and there are people in this audience who I think are here to listen, and there are some who are not here to listen.

Mr. Richard Harris: Point of order.

The Chair: I would suggest that those people, as a courtesy to everyone around this room—the witnesses, the people here, the media, so they can get the story of this meeting out to those who are interested in hearing the testimony.... I would ask this room and all members in this room to show the courtesy that has been extended—

Mr. Richard Harris: Point of order.

The Chair: —and the order that has been extended. I will continue to tolerate these small outbursts, but I suggest that it would be better.... The chair has discretion to allow the timing. I'm trying to stay to the five-minute timing that is clerked and I will continue to give extra time when there are interruptions that disrupt the answers that have been posed by members. That is my ruling, and this is how we'll proceed.

I will not get angry, I will stay calm, and I will hear these witnesses. Thank you very much.

Mr. Richard Harris: A point of order. A point of order.

The Chair: A point of order again, Mr. Harris. Go ahead.

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair, Mr. Bachand had a full three minutes and fifteen seconds of uninterrupted questioning, and Mr. Husband was involved in that uninterrupted response, at which time you shut the meeting down because of a member of the audience. That was three minutes and fifteen seconds of uninterrupted questioning and response. You cannot, as a chairman, dismiss those three minutes and fifteen seconds and go back to square one. It is not fair. You are penalizing the people of Prince George by doing this.

• 1145

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you for your interpretation of what a point of order is. I will continue with the meeting.

Mr. Bachand, if you would like to have a question, you now have one minute and a half. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the great sense of fairness with which you are chairing the proceedings of this committee.

I'm asking people to be a little bit more tolerant because we are having a discussion in committee. I think there is a problem with some delegations here. These people must understand, Madam Chair, that they have delegates sitting at this table right now. I believe that these people on my right are representing very well the people sitting over there. These people are represented not only before the committee, but also in the House. Therefore, I think they should let their representatives present their views.

If calls to order have to be made repeatedly and we keep getting interrupted, we won't get anywhere and this meeting here in Prince George will have to be cut short. So, may I suggest that people speak with their representatives who will then present their views.

As far as I'm concerned, I find Mr. Husband's answer to be quite satisfactory. He told me he was in agreement with this, but that he was concerned that other first nations, mostly along the Fraser River, might also have their rights recognized. In my opinion, recognition of these rights could bring about more respect for one another. Therefore, I invite them to get treaties similar to the one we have here for all the first nations on the Fraser. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Madame Hardy, you have five minutes.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

I would really like to thank you for coming, and I need you to explain a couple of things to me.

What was your federation's involvement in the regional committees? Also, you're not satisfied with access. I don't quite understand what you mean by that, so I would like an explanation. Thank you.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Husband.

Mr. Les Husband: As far as the Nisga'a treaty goes, we had no involvement after the agreement in principle was signed or initialled. In the formation of the treaty negotiating and advisory committee, we have two members who sit on that at present, so we do have some involvement at that level. We did have that in the timeframe from the agreement in principle to the final agreement. Consequently, we were successful in having some aspects of the wildlife chapter amended and changed, much more to the acceptance of our members. That tells me that if we had been involved from the start, there may have been an opportunity there to have input and give advice that would have made those chapters in particular more acceptable, I think.

At present, the treaty process has changed. Third-party involvement is part of that process, and different regions in this province have been broken up. There's a regional advisory committee, and we do have at least one member sitting on each one of those regional advisory committees. I do sit on the one here in Prince George, and this involves six first nations.

I'm sorry, what was the second question?

Ms. Louise Hardy: Access.

Mr. Les Husband: Access for us means a number of things. There's access in the terms of existing access down roads or down routes, onto property, through property, across habitats, or whatever. In general terms, though, access to us is access to the resource. In other words, that's an opportunity to still hunt, to still fish, to use the resource, so we ascertain that we still want that access as residents of the province.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you.

Do you want to ask any more questions? No?

Mr. Keddy, go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to try to ask a couple of questions directly from the wildlife and migratory birds part of the treaty, in chapter 9. I understand your issue with access. It certainly is the same issue in eastern Canada. The big difference at home in Nova Scotia is the larger amount of private land: 72% of the land in the province is privately owned, and for all intents and purposes, that private land can shut out access to anybody wanting to harvest wildlife. It becomes another issue.

• 1150

Those of us who are private landowners and hunters have learned to open our property up over the last couple of decades. At the end of the day, your land is better protected. It's not destroyed and it's not vandalized, and people get the benefit of harvesting wildlife from it.

In the agreement, it states:

Nisga'a citizens have the right to harvest wildlife throughout the Nass Wildlife Area in accordance with this Agreement subject to:

a. measures that are necessary for conservation; and

—and conservation has to be the abiding factor; I think we're all in agreement there—

b. legislation enacted for the purposes of public health or public safety.

It then goes on to say—and I think this is the part that you have a problem with:

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

a. is consistent with:

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

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

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

Is that the specific portion that you're in disagreement with? If so, can you give me a little more explanation as to why?

The Chair: Mr. Husband, you have the floor.

Mr. Les Husband: In the Nisga'a agreement, there's a wildlife management area. We recognize that through this treaty the aboriginals have the first opportunity to take their entitlement or their domestic use from that area. What we would like to see maintained is use and access for the resident hunting and fishing population in that area as well. I think we can hunt and fish side by side in there.

We recognize that treaty settlement lands are a different issue. In my understanding, they will be very similar, if not the same, as fee simple lands or private land, and we respect the same property values and priorities that go with private land. We're hoping that, in treaties post-Nisga'a, we can still work alongside the first nations that do settle their treaties and land claims, and that we can still have the opportunity to participate in those recreations and those opportunities on that land also. We respect safety, we respect health, and we respect other issues. As long as good judgment prevails, we're really hopeful that we can still participate in those areas that traditionally were open to us to harvest.

The Chair: You have two minutes left. Go ahead.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

I want to make a comment on what has happened on the Fraser. We've certainly heard a lot about that, because it's been in the press. Overfishing is a reality on the Fraser. I'm not trying to blame first nations for overharvesting on the Fraser any more than I want to blame our east coast fishermen for catching all the caplin, the grenadine, the silver hake, and the herring that the cod fed on, and the pollock and the haddock and all the rest of our fish species. And I'll go a little step further. I'm not going to blame my grandfather for shooting the last caribou ever shot in our area in Nova Scotia, either.

There's a factor in all three of those cases that needs to apply, and it's very simple: conservation applies, and the government has the authority to control the food fishery through conservation measures. As long as the government refuses to control that food fishery, you're going to have chaos. It comes back to what you were saying before about abuse of a food fishery or any wildlife management: you have poaching, you have illegal sales, and you have people willing to buy the product. It becomes a serious issue.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Les Husband: The member's comments basically reflect our federation's comments. That's why we have extreme concern about the trade, barter, and sale part of it. In this province anyway, the avenue of sale of wildlife and the game farming issue are not issues at this time. Game farming doesn't exist here, and we don't want to see it in this province.

We have a bigger issue with the Fraser being an enforcement issue. We've commented very strongly that part of the implementation of treaties has to be enforcement, not only from the point of view of the residents of the province, but very strongly.... If some of the natives in my corner over here don't mind my using their name in vain, the Lheit Lit'en at the north end of the Fraser, for instance, are probably very close to settling a treaty. If there was an entitlement to fish in there, I don't think I'd be very happy if the bands at the mouth of the Fraser were fishing them all out so I didn't get any.

So it's not only an enforcement issue from the point of view of the residents of this province, it's an enforcement issue for the first nations that are further up the river. Enforcement and implementation are two very critical points to these treaties.

• 1155

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, you have five minutes.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. If I may use my five minutes as comments, I will do so.

I don't understand why people don't take the time to get to know the other side of the story, and I guess I will use my own personal experience as an aboriginal. This happened in my lifetime. I have a scar on my face because an out-of-towner came into our community and decided that I should have a certain operation, even though my parents said no—and that's only 35 years ago. Yet my father still made sure those out-of-towners did not freeze to death in our community. We've lived in a way in which we respect someone else's views that were forced upon us, even though my father was very upset that I still proceeded with this operation that they did not agree to. Some out-of-towner told them to, but he made sure that person was well clothed and well fed in our community.

I learned the English language, and I learned their mannerisms. I would hope that same courtesy will now be applied to me, that someone will take the time to learn how I feel and what we've lived through for thousands of years. In my opinion, that really isn't too much to ask for: that you get to know the other side of the story too.

It's very difficult for me when I see that it's a “them and us” issue, but I guess it's the way this has happened. Conservation is something that is very dear to the aboriginal people; otherwise we would not have survived.

It's also very hard for the aboriginal people to rely only on out-of-towners' versions of conservation, when you look at the buffalo on the plains or the bowhead whales in my area. We're now limited to one every two years or so, if permitted. Due to conservation, snow geese in my area are so overpopulated that there is nothing left for them to eat. They're starving themselves, and we now have to have programs to kill off as many as we can in the spring; otherwise they will all starve. And there are so many deer in some parts of Ontario that they're eating the bark off the trees.

So it's a little hard for us to rely on out-of-towners' versions of how to do conservation when we have those very glaring mistakes in our history.

As aboriginals, I think we have a bit of catching up to do. My parents first voted in Canada in 1960, and that's not very long ago. That was the first time we had a chance to vote all across Canada as first peoples of Canada. In my view, I guess we have a little catching up to do to become part of the decision-making.

Another thing is that no one asked our communities for our opinions about sending our children off to school at eight years old, 500 miles away. No one asked us to have a referendum on whether we should live in houses in the communities or stay in our outpost camps. No one asked us to have a referendum as to what kind of language should be taught in the schools. We went right from our language to English.

It's very difficult for me to understand how a referendum can have a group of people's best interests at heart if you don't take the time to talk to them and understand how they feel, so being on this tour is very much a learning experience for me and this committee. We're here to hear other people's points of view as to how they feel about the treaty process.

A voice: Why don't you ask about how we feel?

The Chair: Please, you're taking the time of the member.

Go ahead.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: If we can understand how people feel, then we also expect that same courtesy as people try to understand how we feel. I think people in all of Canada have to have the opportunity to make decisions about themselves.

• 1200

Again, it's very sad to see those types of opinions when, first of all, I don't live on a reserve. If you feel I don't know what I'm talking about, you'll have to wonder how I got my last name, Lindell. My children are half of what you are—unfortunately. At times, I have to think so.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Ms. Lindell—

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: But I have decided that for my children to succeed in Canada today, they have to understand both worlds and be able to live in both worlds. I guess that's all I'm trying to say. I think we have to understand how the other world lives in order for us to live together.

We're not going away and you're not going away. I feel we have to negotiate. It's like a marriage—

The Chair: Ms. Lindell, your time is up.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Hill, go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: I thank you.

While I'm sure everyone in the room, the audience and the other members of the committee and the witnesses, appreciated your historic view, colleague, I would point out that a real reason we're in such a mess is that we've adhered to a failed treaty process, the Indian Act, since the very beginning. This treaty that we're here to discuss today just continues us down that failed and flawed road.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Jay Hill: I want to raise the concern you expressed, Mr. Husband, near the end of your submission:

BCWF is very concerned that treaties are being dealt with on an individual basis with very little thought about the long-term affect....

Speaking on behalf of all the other aboriginal groups in British Columbia—and my understanding, although I wasn't able to attend, is that yesterday in Smithers presentations were made by a couple of other aboriginal groups—there are some very grave concerns that this treaty, rather than bringing finality and certainty, is instead going to continue this failed policy of not only pitting aboriginal against non-aboriginal, as we've seen over the lifetime of our country, unfortunately, but also aboriginal against aboriginal. I think that's of grave concern to not only us but also the other first nations.

I wonder if you could elaborate on your statement of concern that the government is trying to deal with this on an individual basis rather than trying to settle all the land claims and trying to reach some consensus amongst the aboriginal groups themselves so that some aren't shut out while rights are granted to others.

Mr. Les Husband: I'd prefer to address it, if I may, in terms of just the resource end of it, fish and wildlife. That's a point we have brought forward a number of times. In fact, I'm still waiting on an answer from a letter of two months ago to Minister Nault on the federal point of view on that very question.

An hon. member: You'll be waiting a long time.

Mr. Les Husband: We look at the wildlife side of things and the management boards and management committees being proposed by the individual bands and wonder how we can manage wildlife in this province with fifty or sixty different wildlife management boards when it's done on a regional basis at present with nine regions. The same goes for fisheries.

It's become very evident, although there may be some notions of change in the wind, that treaties are being dealt with on an individual basis. By that I mean one treaty is negotiated, the land is set out, chapters are written, subagreements are written up, and it's approved. Then the next treaty is dealt with on an individual basis—same thing. Land is set out.

We need to look at the province and the big picture. We need to have some foresight and look down the road five or six years to see what this is going to look like when we have all these treaties done and finished. The effect, again, is going to be on the resources. It's going to be on the timber, the fish, the wildlife, and the mining industries if our governments don't look at the picture that way.

It's evident in Nisga'a right now that overlaps, as far as management areas go for fish and wildlife, are going to be controversial. They already are in the northeast. They're going to be in this area around Prince George. They already are identified. Although things aren't settled yet, it is an issue.

• 1205

So I think both our governments are going to have to take the lead, to sit down and come up with some type of long-term plan for dealing with treaties as a whole in this province.

I hope that answers your question.

The Chair: You have a bit more time.

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chair—

The Chair: No, we started with Mr. Hill, we'll finish with Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think I have about a minute left, so I would just turn it over for a quick question to my colleague Mr. Harris.

The Chair: I ruled on that earlier today. Would you like to finish using your time?

Mr. Jay Hill: My understanding, Madam Chairman, is that the time slot is allocated to our party, and it's up to us to decide how we want to split that five minutes.

The Chair: Okay, then, we will go on to the next, as I have already ruled on that.

Mr. O'Reilly.

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

Mr. Jay Hill: That's absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I want to thank the witness, but I want to, in the spirit of fairness to the people of Prince George, relinquish my time to the local member of Parliament, Mr. Harris.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

I will give Mr. O'Reilly's five minutes to Mr. Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: Well, Madam Chair, that's a huge—

An hon. member: Gesture.

An hon. member: Concession.

Mr. Richard Harris: —concession, yes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: That's the first time I've seen him speechless.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Richard Harris: Madam Chairman, thank you, and if I don't use all my time, I'm sure Mr. Gouk will be able to take the balance.

Is that okay with you, Mr. O'Reilly? Thank you.

Mr. Husband, I have a concern about public safety within the treaty lands in the agreement. Yesterday in Smithers the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow voiced opposition, that this treaty, if signed, would consume up to 84% or 85% of the land that they believe is their territory land and that they will be seeking under their land claims agreement.

As a matter of fact, the discussion got quite heated, and in the testimony from the Gitanyow, they said if this agreement went forward, they would consider this 80% or so as a trespass on their traditional lands and would defend that land.

It further went into comments along the lines of this land becoming, or perhaps becoming, another Bosnia, Chechnya, or Oka. Those were the terms used.

Now, I would say your members, when we talk about access, must be very concerned, given these statements, about their safety with regard to certain lands in that area. My question is, why do you think the government is about to enter into and finalize this agreement in light of the fact that this potentially very violent situation has been threatened?

The Chair: Mr. Husband, you have the floor.

Mr. Les Husband: Three things. First and utmost, deal with overlaps before land is settled. At present we are trying to do that, and I think it very clearly should have been done in that case. I think the fault probably lies at the feet of the negotiators and government at that time. Not to have the perception to see that an issue like this may be confrontational is very wrong and I think unfair to the rest of the people who have to live in that area.

From my point of view, two things. Again, getting back to that term “certainty”, part of that is dealing with these issues beforehand and having them settled so that an issue of safety or combativeness won't arise from boundary misunderstandings or overlaps. I think those things have to be sorted out before treaties are finalized.

Again, it was the opportunity there. If there are overlaps, the residents won't suffer the most; the resource will. The resource will be what goes down. Conservation is not going to be an issue, and an opportunity for both sides won't be there. Those three things have to come into play.

• 1210

I'm quite disappointed personally that that wasn't dealt with beforehand.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Mr. Harris, you have more time. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. O'Reilly said Mr. Gouk could take the balance of my time.

The Chair: Yes, but the chair has ruled that we're not dividing time, so go ahead, Mr. Harris. Please continue with your time.

Mr. Richard Harris: Okay. I'd like to talk about the part of the agreement that grants a Nisga'a government paramount powers in some 14 areas that would in fact supersede or seem to overrule provincial and/or federal governments. In other words, there is clear indication that these powers that are granted would contribute to creating a third order of government.

I don't think this country needs a third order of government. We're all Canadians. We all should be living under Canadian law and provincial law. Is your membership comfortable with the third order of government that is bound to be created under this treaty?

Mr. Les Husband: That has the potential to be a very leading question.

Mr. Jay Hill: We like those kinds.

Mr. Les Husband: I'd say two things from the point of view of our organization.

We adamantly believe, and it's one of our principles in our policy with aboriginal negotiations, that provincial and federal governments should have overriding authority.

Secondly, we do not support a third level of government. We can support a government more along the lines of a municipal government. That's our federation's point of view.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Richard Harris: Thank you, Mr. Husband.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

The Chair: Thanks very much.

Monsieur Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Maybe something was said yesterday about the situation in Bosnia, Chechnya and Oka, but I'd like to remind our witnesses and my colleagues that they are not the first neighbours to quarrel. We heard yesterday about some dispute between the Nisga'a and another first nation.

May I remind you also that we Canadians have had disputes with the Americans on occasions. Just think about the coming round of negotiations at the WTO. It won't necessarily be all fun and games either. There will be problems. You can be sure that the U.S. will ask Canada to make concessions. But, still, we do manage to be on neighbourly terms with them.

Of course, some times are more trying than others, but must we expect that the differences neighbouring first nations are having will lead to a situation like the one in Chechnya, Bosnia or Oka? I don't think so. It would be like saying that the U.S. are not satisfied with the WTO agreements and so will drop an atomic bomb on Canada. Personally, I don't think this could happen.

I believe that the problem can be solved through negotiation. And we're back to negotiation, Mr. Husband. In my opinion, being intolerant and aggressive cannot help you deal with a problem, and neither can trying to forego the negotiating structures that were passed on to us by our forebears. I suggest that the only way to find a solution is to try and find some common ground.

Yesterday, we from the Bloc Québécois asked the Gitxsan and the Gitanyow whether we could meet with them to try and find a way to integrate them into the treaty process without compromising the Nisga'a issue. They said yes and we all went for a meal together. They made some proposals and this morning, I talked to the Nisga'a who said they were ready to consider these proposals. They didn't say whether they were in favour of them or not. Of course, they want things to be settled quickly, but they've opened the door to negotiations and I think that we have to give negotiation a chance.

So, I want to know what you think about that. Don't you agree that the only solution that would please everyone, including the people who are here today, is a negotiated settlement?

• 1215

[English]

Mr. Les Husband: Absolutely. Negotiations are the only way it can be done. However, the difficulty with the Nisga'a is that the Nisga'a have signed a final agreement. If they are willing to make concessions and change their final agreement, I suppose everybody would be in agreement with that. But I can't speak on behalf of the Nisga'a. I don't know what their feelings are towards that.

I don't know how the Gitanyow would feel about what may be given up as concessions. They probably feel strongly from a different point of view and a different area quantum that they may want. That's why I feel that before agreements are signed finally, these kinds of things should be sorted out through negotiations.

A voice: Right on!

Voices: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you have one more question?

Mr. Claude Bachand: I'm happy to have one more minute, because I don't think that there is only one way of dealing with the problem we are confronted with. An agreement is not the only solution. There are many others. As MPs, we will be called upon to vote on Bill C-9, probably in two or three weeks.

I'll grant you that the three parties have negotiated the agreement. Maybe there are some people who had never heard of it. I must admit that I, for one, had never heard of it before the bill was introduced in the House. I'm taking an interest in the bill now because I will have to take a stand in three week's time and do my job as lawmaker. We can still amend the bill, otherwise it might be possible to make some arrangements to accommodate people when the agreement—which is not really a part of the whole agreement as such—is implemented. Or else, we could have a collateral or complementary agreement similar to what was done for the James Bay Agreement. So, we are looking at a whole range of solutions.

I'll grant you one thing: it's too late to arrive at... We would have to convince all three parties to amend the agreement and that would be difficult, but I think we still have a hold over everything surrounding the agreement. As far as I'm concerned, negotiations will have to deal with this part in their final leg. Do you know of other ways apart from amending the agreement per se? Would the method I have just mentioned, among others, suit you?

[English]

The Chair: Could we have a short answer, Mr. Husband? Thank you.

Mr. Les Husband: The opportunity for change or amendment is very, very short and fast running out. I believe there's just third reading left. If there is an opportunity to do something that way that can be written into the bill, then that's probably the final opportunity we have. If it can be explored or expanded, it should seriously be looked at, because not only is it a difficult situation for the Nisga'a, but it's a dangerous precedent that I don't think we want to get into.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, please.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll take my five minutes.

A number of points have been raised here today, and I think most of us at the table understand that there are different opinions and different ideas on this. But I'm going to take part of my time to make a comment on some of the comments that were coming from the audience when Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell was speaking that I really take offence to. I'd appreciate it if the audience would show some respect for every member of Parliament in here, and I don't mind, as a member of Parliament, asking that.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like to ask our presenter about a couple of other issues.

Certainly the one that concerns me most is this concept, this idea, that somehow we can go back to square one and start this process anew. I've heard some of the local members of Parliament state this idea, and I'm in dramatic disagreement with it. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. It needs to be argued out in the light of day.

We have specific rights for first nations, whether I disagree or agree. Those rights are in the Constitution of Canada, set down in 1867. We can't change that. So we have certain parameters, as members of Parliament and as responsible citizens in this country, that we have to work within. One of those parameters is recognition of aboriginal rights that have been gained through the court system.

That is why our party is supporting negotiated treaties. I'm not saying treaties are perfect, but certainly they're a lot better than the alternative. We have the alternative in Nova Scotia, and I can tell you I've been in a room with 900 fishermen, and it's not pretty. A lot things were said that shouldn't have been said. But we managed to come out of that with an interim agreement in the hope that we'll get some leadership from the government and be able to come up and find a modern-day treaty and not have to depend on something that was signed in 1760.

• 1220

I know I'm running out of time, but what happens when we try to assume that we can just throw everything out—all of the Supreme Court precedents, everything that has happened in this country up to this point—is a mistake. At the end of it, as Mr. Bachand said several times, we're going to reach a negotiated treaty that is not going to be agreeable to all parties. I understand your concerns because I share them, but there are a number of things that I think we have to have in the treaty process that protect rights.

However, we have three options in this country. I've said this at committee before, and I've said it in Parliament. We can continue to try to settle the aboriginal question in the courts of Canada, which hasn't worked well for either side; we can go back to the old way of settling aboriginal issues, open violence, which is not acceptable to any Canadians I've talked to; or we can have modern-day treaties. And when you enter upon that process, the parties don't come out with everything they want.

However, I think it's important for us to make sure...and it's in this treaty, for instance, in the overlap with the Gitanyow and the Gitxsan. The overlap is treated and allowed for in the data, in the treaty itself, and it may not come out with a perfect agreement for everybody involved. It's going to be a negotiated agreement, where some people will give up some rights, or gain some rights, but both people will be able to walk away from the table and say, “It's not what I came for, but I can settle for it.”

I don't see any other way around this process. So I'd like your comment.

The Chair: Please give a short answer, Mr. Husband. Thank you.

Mr. Les Husband: I hate speaking on behalf of the Gitanyow, because I'm not quite sure of the points of view.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: There's a process within the treaty itself to allow for settlement.

Mr. Les Husband: I agree with that. But if it were me in that predicament and somebody else already had an agreement written up and signed off, I would have difficulty with that. Again, I don't want to speak for them, but—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, they have difficulty with it.

Mr. Les Husband: —a negotiation means that all three or four parties participate on an equal basis and everybody gives up something to come to a conclusion. In this instance, when you look at that, somebody already has an agreement, somebody already has won, and I think that's the difficult part. The negotiation should be brought up on an even keel, with all parties participating on the same level.

Again, I don't want to speak for the Gitanyow, but that's my advice.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We have one more round. Mr. Finlay, please. Thank you.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the witness for the brief and for his remarks.

I'm looking at the last page of the brief, because I think your outline of the five points of process is interesting and helpful, and I must say I appreciate what Mr. Keddy and my colleague Mr. Bachand have just said.

I did at one time own 100 acres of southern Ontario farmland. It wasn't really a farm, because there was a creek running through the bottom and the hillside was too steep to farm, but I planted a lot of trees and built some trout ponds, and I looked after those things. I was a member of the Canadian forestry association, and one of their theories some years ago when we were facing the decimation of forests was that one of the ways to preserve the forests was to make the lands private, rather than public, so that the people who owned them and would derive some benefit from them would also be conscious that if they cut everything down and didn't replant, or if they didn't look after or protect it, it wouldn't do them any good.

Now, the party that has spoken most often in the House about the Indian question and one way to solve it has always talked about giving our aboriginal people fee simple title to land. They meant as individuals or communities. This treaty gives the Nisga'a fee simple title to the Nisga'a lands.

• 1225

In your process summary you say:

Access to the fish, wildlife and outdoor recreational resources will be maintained for all citizens, consistent with the rights of land ownership and requirements of management.

I was told that although I built the ponds, bought the fish, and paid for the feed, I still couldn't fish the trout out of season. So the requirements for management applied to my fish ponds. But I could, since I owned the land, prevent your access to fish in my pond, poach in my pond out of season, or cut down my trees.

Since the Nisga'a will have fee simple rights to that small portion of what they claim as their territorial right, do you have some problem with this? This is what you say this process should be. If the Nisga'a decided that the deer or moose population was too light, or whatever, and said, sorry, but you can't come in and hunt that on our lands, is that not consistent with the rights of land ownership?

The Chair: Mr. Husband, please.

Mr. Les Husband: You're absolutely right. That's not the interpretation we have or meant. We do recognize the regulations and laws that go with private or fee simple lands. By all means, we don't have any inclination of trying to change that. We do recognize and we would support anything along the lines of fee simple lands.

My understanding is that with treaty settlement lands, there will be fee simple lands involved where dwellings, etc., are in place. As part of the treaty settlement lands, there will be other areas with the opportunity for fishing. We would like to see that maintained. That's all. We're trying to work with first nations and maintain as much access to the resources as we can, recognizing that some areas will be shut off due to the fact that they will become fee simple lands. We recognize that.

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, sir. The 2,000 square kilometres on the map there, the green area, is all Nisga'a land. That's fee simple ownership. So what you're telling me is that you would hope that in the fullness of time, as you wish to use or gain access to it, the Nisga'a would welcome the anglers and hunters of B.C. onto their land if they so wished.

However, this treaty doesn't force that, except through very specific things like the northern B.C. highway and the right-of-way. The provincial government has within that green area some 200, 400—whatever it is—square kilometres for access and right-of-way.

The Chair: You have a very short answer, and that will be the final.

Mr. Les Husband: Yes, we recognize that, and that's the issue we have with that.

A voice: Then why don't you honour it?

Mr. Les Husband: If that's the desire of the Nisga'a—in this case—then we will have to honour that. But we're hoping very much that access will be there reasonably.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's the end of your time.

I want to thank the witness for giving us the benefit of his viewpoint. The exchange is very useful to the committee. I'd like to thank the audience for attending.

I want to remind members that they need to check out so we can leave for Victoria after our hearings this afternoon. Hearings will recommence at 2 p.m., and for the benefit of the members, there are some short lunch supplies next door for you.

Thank you very much. I remind everyone, before adjourning, that anybody in this audience or anywhere in Canada can send in a brief to the clerk. Thank you.

We are adjourned.