Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 10 - Evidence - February 1, 2012
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 1, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:45 p.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: status of the British Columbia treaty process).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: In the spirit of conducting our business in the usual efficient manner committee members like to operate under, I will call the meeting to order.
Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either on CPAC or the World Wide Web.
I am Senator St. Germain, from British Columbia, and I have the honour of chairing this committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, generally. On October 25, 2011, this committee received a briefing from the British Columbia Treaty Commission on issues related to the implementation of the British Columbia treaty process. On November 1, 2011, the committee decided to produce a short report on the status of the process. In view of this objective, the committee agreed to conduct one or two further meetings to hear testimony from the three parties responsible for the creation of the process.
Today we are beginning to hear testimony updating us on the status of the of the B.C. treaty process. This evening we will hear from two of these three parties, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Government of British Columbia. We will hear from the First Nations Summit possibly at a later date.
[Translation]
Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to introduce the committee members who are here this evening.
[English]
We have Senator Campbell from British Columbia, Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories, Senator Raine from British Columbia, and last but definitely not least is Senator Demers from the province of Quebec.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from the British Columbia provincial government, the Honourable Mary Polak, Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and Steve Munro, Deputy Minister, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. From Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we have Joëlle Montminy, Acting Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, and Anita Boscariol, Director General, Negotiations — West.
Witnesses, we look forward to your update on the treaty process, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Minister, would you like to lead off?
Hon. Mary Polak, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Government of British Columbia: Certainly. That would be fine.
The Chair: Welcome to Ottawa.
Ms. Polak: Good evening, and thank you. I would like to acknowledge my fellow British Columbians, Senator Raine and Senator Campbell.
Honourable senators, my fellow witnesses from the Government of Canada, ladies and gentlemen, joining me today on behalf of the Government of British Columbia is my deputy minister, as mentioned, Steve Munro. Of course, we both represent the Government of British Columbia in the form of the Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Ministry. The province certainly appreciates this opportunity to testify before this committee.
We come before you at a significant moment for treaty making in British Columbia, the dawn of the twentieth anniversary of the B.C. treaty process.
In 1992, British Columbia committed, along with the First Nations Summit and the Government of Canada, to participate in a made-in-British Columbia treaty process, a process each party believed would finally address what has long been unfinished business for a nation, that being treaties with First Nations in British Columbia.
In the years that have followed, we have in many ways realized the hope that the process first presented in the form of three final agreements. The Nisga'a Final Agreement, finalized in 2000, was the first modern treaty in British Columbia. Now, it was achieved outside of the BC Treaty Commission process, but it did establish much of the treaty model used in the province today.
There is also the Tsawwassen treaty, the first urban treaty in British Columbia and the first treaty under this process, and more recently the Maa-nulth treaty, the first rural and multi-nation treaty under the current process.
These First Nations have embarked on a remarkable and unprecedented journey of independence in our province. Parliament will soon have the opportunity to approve the next treaty, which is the Yale First Nation treaty. The B.C. legislature ratified it last spring.
The B.C. government is naturally very proud of these agreements. Each treaty represents what is possible under this process when each party is willing and determined to achieve success: self-governing and self-reliant communities enjoying the same opportunities as other Canadians to build a prosperous future.
While we have realized the promise of treaty, we have also seen that promise go unfulfilled. Lheidli T'enneh is one example. The hope remains for other treaties in British Columbia, such as Yale, Tla'amin, K'ómoks and In-SHUCK- ch. After almost 20 years, the promise of the process is now being examined with understandable scrutiny.
I have often said the length of time it takes to negotiate a treaty reflects the complexity of issues a treaty intends to address, issues that go back hundreds of years and have been left to languish, in particular in British Columbia. Formalizing a new relationship under these circumstances does take time, but it should not take a generation.
For far too long, Aboriginal people in British Columbia, and indeed throughout our country, have struggled with intolerable outcomes in health, education and economic opportunities, a quality of life that is vastly different from other Canadians.
In 2005, our provincial government took a hard look at these outcomes. We committed to redefining our relationship with First Nations by finding better ways to achieve reconciliation. We now work in partnership with First Nations and Aboriginal people in education, health care and through revenue sharing and shared decision making.
The Government of British Columbia understands and shares a desire to regain a sense of urgency and purpose in the B.C. treaty process so we can continue to pursue reconciliation with First Nations.
The way to reconciliation is through negotiation. There is no doubt a modern treaty is a triumph of negotiation. Negotiated treaties legally define ownership and use of lands and resources. Treaties provide the means for self- governance for First Nations to build their own futures on their own terms. Treaties also reconcile Aboriginal rights and title. They provide a full and final answer to that tremendously difficult land question. All of these elements bring predictability for First Nations, for governments, for business and investors, and they support continued development and economic growth throughout the province.
Over the years, the B.C. government has tried to reinvigorate treaty negotiations by pursuing incremental agreements with First Nations to build momentum in advance of treaty. British Columbia has put land and governance opportunities on the table earlier in the process of negotiations. These pre-treaty agreements are designed to be incremental. They are not intended to be an alternative to treaty, but instead are designed as building blocks that can be used to construct a full treaty in increments. They provide capacity and economic opportunities and build First Nations support as we pursue negotiation toward final agreements.
These agreements allow First Nations to realize the benefits of shared economic agreements with the province. We also believe the increased capacity within communities that result from these agreements will ultimately help to accelerate treaty negotiations with the First Nation.
However, these are bilateral agreements. Canada's participation in these agreements would greatly improve our collective ability to take these agreements and build final agreements, although we recognize that not all of these will lead to a final treaty. The treaty process is voluntary, and some First Nations in British Columbia choose not to participate.
We understand the concerns of our colleagues in the BC Treaty Commission with regard to some of our reconciliation efforts. At the same time, the province and First Nations cannot wait indefinitely for the economic benefits of final treaties. The province cannot wait indefinitely for Canada to address its impediments to treaty negotiations. Neither can First Nations and other British Columbians. We cannot exclude those First Nations who choose not to participate in the treaty process.
My cabinet colleagues and I have been tasked with ensuring British Columbians have access to the jobs and other economic opportunities needed to support their families. We are working with First Nations inside and outside the treaty process to pursue agreements that will bring benefits to their communities right now or, in the case of treaty, earlier in the process.
The B.C. government has encouraged and continues to invite Canada to be a part of these agreements and to make a stronger link to the success of treaty negotiations. While discussions with the federal government are under way, right now Canada lacks a mandate to participate. We believe that with Canada's full participation we could make significant progress.
Treaties are the most comprehensive and final way of reaching reconciliation and, finally, of resolving the land question. The British Columbia government remains fully committed to continuing negotiations toward final agreements.
The three principals must work together to overcome the challenging status quo we face after 20 years of negotiations. We must look very hard at ways to breathe new life into the B.C. treaty process. We must also examine ways to reinvigorate our own participation in the process and remove barriers to success. The parties must work together in the same spirit in which the process was born, a spirit of action. We have a responsibility to First Nations, to all British Columbians and indeed to future generations of Canadians to continue on this path of reconciliation with First Nations and to finish this unfinished business.
The Chair: Thank you, Madam Minister. Now over to the department.
Joëlle Montminy, Acting Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Good evening, honourable senators. I am here with Anita Boscariol, Director General, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Negotiations — West.
It is a privilege to be here. We welcome the opportunity to appear before a committee of federal lawmakers to discuss issues that are so critical to Canada.
The negotiation of modern treaties is a key cornerstone of Canada's vision for the future of First Nations. In British Columbia, Canada's approach to comprehensive claims is manifested in the B.C. treaty process. It is through the B.C. treaty process that Canada endeavours to conclude what is frequently described as the unfinished business of treaty making.
Throughout most of Canada, early governments entered into historical treaties with the Aboriginal communities that populated the land prior to the arrival of our ancestors. For a number of reasons, treaty making never really took hold in B.C. As a result, and as the courts have repeatedly affirmed, the vast majority of the province is subject to claims of outstanding Aboriginal rights and title. This creates significant uncertainty over the use and ownership of lands and resources, which, in turn, levies a high toll on the provincial economy.
In 1990, Canada, B.C. and the First Nations representatives struck the B.C. Claims Task Force to recommend a model for the tripartite negotiation of modern treaties. Nineteen recommendations contained in the task force's 1991 report became the blueprint for the B.C. treaty process.
The Chair: Could you slow down a little bit, please? The translators are chasing you.
Ms. Montminy: The modern treaties we are pursuing today under the B.C. treaty process are comprehensive agreements designed to achieve clarity and predictability over ownership and use of lands and resources, to backstop healthy and prosperous First Nation communities, to foster accountable First Nations government, and to embrace First Nations people as full participants in modern-day Canada.
We have been at it in British Columbia for almost 20 years. Some people look at the history of treaty negotiations in B.C. — the limited number of treaties to date, the ongoing challenges — and they ask if the B.C. treaty process is worth it. Yes, we have our challenges, but I believe the B.C. treaty process is by far the best opportunity to reconcile with First Nations and to prescribe a new and lasting relationship based on mutual respect and trust.
The B.C. treaty process is a made-in-B.C. solution to a made-in-B.C. situation. In many ways, it is unique in Canada. For example, the B.C. treaty process is open to all First Nations. There is no requirement to provide a prima facie proof of historic use or occupation of asserted traditional territories. First Nations interests in the process are represented by the First Nations Summit.
Another unique feature is that the treaty process itself is overseen by the BC Treaty Commission, the keeper of the process, which serves several critical roles, including the allocation of negotiation support funding for First Nations.
We have achieved significant outcomes in B.C. In addition to the Nisga'a treaty, six other First Nations — Tsawwassen and the five members of the Maa-nulth — are now living under modern treaties and charting their own course as self- governing communities.
Two more final agreements — with Yale First Nation and Sliammon First Nation — are awaiting ratification, and two more are nearing completion. A seventh treaty was concluded with Lheidli T'enneh and subsequently rejected in a community vote. However, Lheidli T'enneh leadership is now contemplating putting the draft treaty to another vote.
Another eight treaty tables are making significant progress toward agreements in principle.
[Translation]
How do these results in B.C. compare with achievements elsewhere in Canada? Since 1973, 23 comprehensive treaties or land claims agreements, of which 16 include self-government agreements, have been concluded Canada- wide.
In that context, I think the B.C. treaty process is reasonably successful, particularly given the extremely challenging circumstances in B.C. — such as small communities, multiple overlapping claims, and a heavily populated and tenured land base.
However, we all agree that we can and must do better.
Like all parties, Canada brings to the negotiating table certain core interests we hold up as essential to the public interest.
Canada's overarching interests are to achieve lasting clarity and predictability with respect to ownership and use of lands and resources.
Treaties must be affordable and manageable on a national scale.
They must provide fair access for all to scarce resources, such as the fishery.
Self-government must embrace democratic principles and ensure accountable and transparent First Nations government.
When First Nations attain a degree of prosperity, they must contribute to the cost of their own programs and services.
After a transition period, First Nations citizens must pay taxes to generate revenues to support community services and to engender meaningful accountability between taxpayers and their elected representatives. These are the federal interests that shape the mandates issued to federal negotiators.
Like Canada, B.C. and First Nations each have core interests that must be met in treatment outcomes.
The art of the negotiation is in translating those interests into treaty provisions that are acceptable to all parties.
[English]
Despite the progress at treaty tables around the province, we face challenges in the B.C. treaty process. Some are the sorts of manifestations one would expect of difficult negotiations. Others could not possibly have been foreseen.
For example, Canada's mandates have recently been criticized as too narrow or rigid. That perception — and similar issues with provincial mandates — was largely at the root of a number of negotiating First Nations coming together as a common table to seek federal and provincial mandate changes. In 2008, the Common Table representatives sat down with senior federal and provincial representatives to attempt to overcome what First Nations leaders described as universal impediments to progress in negotiations.
As a result, in 2010 Canada introduced new mandates with respect to recognition of pre-existing Aboriginal rights and an important new technique to achieve certainty that allows for the continuation of Aboriginal rights and title when they are consistent with the rights set out in the treaty. This is important as First Nations have often criticized Canada's policy as an attempt to extinguish their Aboriginal rights. Not long ago, new recognition language was successfully introduced at one treaty table, and we expect to roll it out at other tables in British Columbia and potentially elsewhere in Canada.
On another front, a tripartite working group is examining possible improvements to the process in the areas of negotiation support funding, the parties' capacity to conduct negotiations, ways to streamline negotiations and approaches to resolve overlapping claims, including the review of a role for the BC Treaty Commission in negotiations. All these initiatives have the potential to generate significant benefits and efficiencies in the B.C. treaty process.
A key challenge that requires urgent attention is overlapping claims. It is well recognized by the B.C. Claims Task Force that First Nations overlapping claims would need to be addressed as part of treaty negotiations. One of the 19 recommendations of the task force dealt specifically with that issue. It assigned responsibility for resolving overlaps to the First Nations themselves. That recommendation was incorporated in the form of actions and deliverables prescribed in the B.C. treaty process.
Despite that forethought, overlapping claims have emerged as a fundamental obstacle in the B.C. treaty process and are recognized as such by all parties to negotiations, as well as by the BC Treaty Commission. Like comprehensive claims themselves, the resolution of overlapping claims requires tripartite collaboration and commitment. It is beyond federal capacity alone to address these issues.
Canada, B.C. and the B.C. Treaty Commission are engaged in discussions and pilot projects to identify efficient and effective models to facilitate the resolution of overlapping claims. As mentioned earlier, a tripartite working group is developing potential techniques and practices to foster resolutions. Perhaps more promising, First Nations themselves recognize the need for, and benefits of, shared territory agreements, and I am pleased to say that we are focusing renewed efforts to achieve them.
Yet another significant and unforeseen obstacle to treaty negotiations arose in the Cohen inquiry to investigate the decline in the Fraser River sockeye salmon. Confronted with uncertainty with respect to the fishery and related implications for resource management, Canada announced a deferral of fishery negotiations at treaty tables that involve salmon pending the conclusion of the Cohen inquiry. Canada has attempted to mitigate the impact on treaty negotiations by promoting, where practical, the deferral of fisheries negotiations to the final agreement stage of the treaty process. This has not been acceptable to all tables and has led to some friction.
We are also continuing to explore the potential of a fish carve-out, which would permit tables to conclude final agreements without addressing fisheries. There are several significant implications, and we need to carefully consider all of them before making a final decision on the viability of a fish carve-out.
[Translation]
Despite these and many other challenges, the B.C. treaty process is delivering results. We believe comprehensive tripartite negotiations are the ultimate expression of collaboration and the agreements they generate are the best available opportunity to arrive at lasting reconciliation, and to engender healthy, prosperous First Nations communities.
Nonetheless, we recognize that, for the foreseeable future, treaty negotiations do not offer a viable opportunity for all First Nations. While many First Nations are actively engaged in treaty negotiations in British Columbia, many others are not.
Therefore, while we work to refine and improve the BC treaty process, we are also developing new tools to manage section 35 rights more broadly, which hopefully will provide an alternate for those First Nations in British Columbia not currently negotiating a modern treaty.
Thank you very much. My colleague and I will be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for the excellent and consistent presentations. Are you sure you never got together before this meeting?
How big an obstacle is this fisheries issue? My understanding is that the fisheries issue is the major stumbling block in several of these negotiations. Can you elaborate on this? When will the Cohen commission report, or do we know? Are there timelines?
Ms. Polak: I will start with your last question.
With respect to timelines, we will be seeking clarity on that when we meet with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We are seeking clarity not only with respect to when the Cohen commission will wrap up but also regarding Canada's expectations around the completion of the reports and recommendations that may flow from that. At this stage, we are unclear as to whether the moratorium on discussion of fish waits until the commission is ended or until there are recommendations and a report flowing from that. We are seeking clarity on that.
How big an impediment is it? Obviously, that depends upon whether the particular treaty involved contains a relationship to salmon. Perhaps I can illustrate it this way: For the vast majority of our treaties in discussion, you are dealing with something that puts a stop on the purpose of a final agreement, as it stands now, which is why we are talking about carve-out language.
Ultimately, a final agreement amounts to the First Nations, together with Canada and British Columbia, signing an agreement that, taken in its entirety, says "We have completed our discussions; there is nothing else to discuss; and we have completely and finally resolved all of your issues." You can imagine that to approach a First Nation and ask them to sign, notwithstanding the fact that there has been no resolution to your issues around fish, becomes a great concern to them.
Hence the discussion about the potential for carve-out language, which would allow us to have an agreement that acknowledges within it that there remain outstanding issues related to fish. That is one possible approach that could be taken that would move us forward. In the interim, without the capacity to negotiate that for many First Nations, that essentially means that we are not negotiating.
The Chair: Truthfully, to many of our West Coast First Nations people, fish is like cattle are to Texas or Montana. You are ignoring a major part of their culture, their spirituality, their history, their economy and everything. Do you have a short comment?
Anita Boscariol, Director General, Negotiations — West, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: With respect to the timetable, the Cohen commission is expected to produce a report, if they stay on schedule, by the end of June.
The Chair: Will it have recommendations or just a report?
Ms. Boscariol: There will be a report that we expect to include recommendations. That is what we anticipate. Ultimately, we will learn whether the commission is on schedule to conclude then, but that is definitely the plan.
With respect to fisheries issues, we know that fish, salmon in particular, are iconic in British Columbia for First Nations as well as for many British Columbians. They are important. We have exempted the three final agreement tables from the fish deferral, so they will be concluded because they were so far along, when the Cohen commission was called, in moving toward the conclusion of a treaty.
With respect to tables that are at the agreement-in-principle stage, we are dealing with the issue by deferring the negotiation of fisheries to the final agreement.
Where First Nations can and wish to conclude an agreement in principle, understanding that fish will be deferred, we are moving forward and making progress on those agreements in principle.
The Chair: It erodes the spirit of moving ahead, to a degree.
Senator Campbell: It is important to acknowledge that it is the twentieth anniversary of an unprecedented process in Canada. I believe that much is being learned, but at the same time much has changed from the point of view of the First Nations, their recognition, the apology by the Prime Minister, and understanding that they are the original people of this country. I commend both you and the B.C. government. I remember that when this started, not many were dancing in the streets. There were many naysayers.
I would like your comments, Minister Polak, on the need to review this and see where we are so we can learn from what has gone on in the past. I would like a comment from the federal government as to what they see that could be changed quickly. I have been on this committee for six years, and it moves at a glacial pace on changes in all areas when it comes to Aboriginal peoples.
My second question is to everyone. I had meetings with Yale First Nation Chief Robert Hope. I would like to know at what point the rights of a minority supersede the rights of a majority within this framework. I have seen the claims from the Stó:lo Nation. If there is anything left of British Columbia, I must have failed to notice it. One of the difficulties we are having within this negotiation process is a sense of reality on the part of all nations. There is understanding that there will be overlaps, but there has to be recognition that there needs to be a sense of reality in their demands.
I am extremely concerned about the Yale treaty, which should be done. The people of Yale want it done and, frankly, if the federal and provincial governments stood in the way of this treaty, as the Stó:lo are doing, we would stop tweeting because it would be so massive. What will be done when one group refuses to even consider another group?
In fact, I do not think I am out of order in believing that the Stó:lo think the Yale are subservient to them and are part of Stó:lo. This process involves self-identification, and these people have self-identified. I would like to know what we will do about this.
They are ready, and through no fault of their own except that that is where they are, they are locked in this process where they cannot complete it. They want to. They are ready. I have seen their plans. It is quite amazing. I would like to know where that will go. Thank you.
Ms. Montminy: In terms of the first question, where we can see changes quickly, as I mentioned during my remarks, we have worked through the Common Table and following that on improving our mandates, which has led Canada to be in a position to introduce recognition language, which is extremely important to accelerate the negotiations. It is very important to First Nations, and we have been able to make some progress there. It has been tabled at one table. It has been well received, and we hope we will be able to roll out similar language at other tables. That language allows us to go beyond the general recognition that Aboriginal rights and title may have existed to something more specific to that First Nation. It is extremely significant for First Nations. It was a long-standing criticism, and we have been able to act on that.
Another area where Canada has been active, not just in British Columbia but across the country, is on responding to First Nations' criticism that our certainty technique amounted to extinguishment of their rights. We have been hearing that complaint and have been acting on this for many years. Canada has been able to develop several alternatives to what was traditionally used as a technique, which was cede, release and surrender. We have moved away from that and offered many different approaches throughout the country, and more recently we came up with an approach that allows, for the first time, Aboriginal rights and title to continue to exist and be exercised in the treaty itself as long as the rights are consistent with those set out in the treaty. That to me is groundbreaking. It is important that First Nations be made aware of these opportunities, and that could go a long way in addressing some fundamental issues that people have had with the treaty.
The other issue you touched on is overlapping claims, which is another challenge we face. That does cause a lot of delays as we move throughout the process, in B.C. in particular because of the significance and the number of overlaps in one territory. That takes time. Our approach is to talk to communities that have interests in the same territory, try to resolve these things and encourage First Nations to do that themselves, with our support, to a certain extent. Those things are difficult, and we face situations sometimes where the other First Nations are not in the same treaty negotiations, so the capacity to engage or the desire to engage is different. There are a number of complex issues around this. We need to do a better job of assisting First Nations and addressing these issues early in the process.
With respect to the Yale-Stó:lo dynamic, I will ask Ms. Boscariol to answer that.
Ms. Boscariol: We are working on concluding the Yale final agreement. At the same time, we want a final agreement that has every chance and opportunity of being successful, so we are also encouraging the parties, Yale and Stó:lo, to try to find a way to resolve their outstanding issues. We are not holding up a treaty for that, but we do think that, in order for a treaty to have the best chance of being successful in the long term, some more attempts at resolution would be worthwhile.
Ms. Polak: With respect to Stó:lo and Yale, I can report that we have recently experienced significant progress in terms of having that dialogue begin through some mediated approaches. I can tell you that I have a much greater degree of confidence now that we will come to a satisfactory resolution than I did a number of months ago, so certainly progress is being made.
As has been said, the overlap issue is certainly one of the things that we struggle with as a result of the nature of land claims in British Columbia. I do believe it is an area that will require some maturation of the treaty process. Yes, we have been in negotiations through the treaty commission for 20 years, but really, the beginning, as I see it, of unleashing the real opportunities in treaty began at Tsawwassen with that first modern-day treaty under the BC Treaty Commission. If you then consider the treaties that have flowed since, Maa-nulth, now Yale and we have Sliammon, I think you can see that the progress we have made since Tsawwassen is markedly different than the process pre- Tsawwassen, and it stands to reason if you consider that prior to Tsawwassen, we had Nisga'a to learn from, but we had never gotten through the BC Treaty Commission process. Now that we have once, the vast majority of issues being discussed with First Nations and treaties can be taken from one table to the next. There are specific issues related to individual First Nations, but by and large, the complex language surrounding those things of substance has already been dealt with. While I do think that we need to discuss the advancement of the treaty process and the revitalization of it, I believe there is reason to be optimistic that we can achieve that and that our progress going forward will be at a much greater pace than before.
I did want to make just a small comment about what can be done to make things happen right away. It is true that the Government of Canada is to be commended for the adjustment that they have made to their mandate. It is certainly a substantial move forward. I would say, though, that one of the places where we could still see improvement in the mandate would be to ensure that, on substantive items, there is a sufficient mandate to allow the negotiators to be able to work at that table without needing to return to Ottawa for an amendment to their mandate. I do think more can be done there.
Cash and land offers earlier in the process would also be of assistance. Certainly, in our view, and where we have begun to pursue things in British Columbia, we believe that a greater use of an incremental approach would also be helpful. We have to understand that willing chiefs and councils who enter into this process are often bringing along a resistant community, and a community that is resistant for a lot of good reasons. Their experiences have not been positive ones. Then, if you imagine asking them to wait for 10 years, putting in all this effort, incurring all this debt, all with a promise that is another 10 years out, it becomes very difficult. All of those of us who live in public life understand how challenging it can be to try to bring your constituents on side with a difficult issue. Now imagine that if you are in that highly charged area of Aboriginal rights and title, it makes it difficult for a chief and council. We believe that employing an incremental approach more frequently would assist in allowing chiefs and councils to display to their community the potential benefits of treaty because they will have it evidenced on the ground.
Senator Campbell: One of the things I am known for on this committee is my patience. That was a joke, chair. I am heartened by both parties and their comments with regard to Yale. I am also heartened by the fact that you both seem to recognize the process and changes that have to be made. I agree with you, Madam Minister, on the Tsawwassen treaty. I think you are right on the money on that one. I look forward to the next time we meet in this room when hopefully it will be the Yale treaty, and sooner rather than later.
Senator Sibbeston: I would like to ask our panel some questions related to the Fort Liard Dene. They call themselves Acho Dene Koe. They are in the southwestern part of the Northwest Territories. They have traditional lands in Yukon and in B.C. I can attest to that because when I first became involved in politics in 1970, as a member of the legislative assembly of the Churchill government, I used to go to Fort Liard, and many of the people would be away. They would have their hunting camps in B.C. and in the Yukon. There were not many people in town in those days.
Since then there has been a migration to town. They are in the throes of negotiating with the federal government, and I understand they have made some progress. This fall I met Harry Deneron, who is the present chief, as he was meeting federal officials. There seems to be some progress made on that front. They tell me though that B.C. — the wonderful province of B.C. — is not cooperating. I understand that in 2002 the BC Treaty Commission concluded that Acho Dene Koe met all the requirements for a claim in B.C., but they have not come to the negotiating table.
I would like to ask the minister whether she is aware of the situation and whether she can assist in that matter.
Ms. Polak: Yes, I am aware of it. We are watching with great interest and, of course, have also been seeking further information with respect to how that is unfolding.
The position we have taken at this stage is that before we make decisions as to how British Columbia might be involved, we are awaiting an agreement in principle. We believe we will be able to have more fruitful discussions around British Columbia's potential involvement once they have that agreement in principle in place. That is the standpoint from which we are considering it at this point.
Senator Sibbeston: Are you talking about the agreement in principle between them and the federal government?
Ms. Polak: Yes.
Senator Sibbeston: I am optimistic that once that happens the door will be open for the B.C. government to meet with them and deal with their land claims in British Columbia. You are not saying there is an impediment or there is anything obstructing that possibility of their settling with regard to land and resources in B.C., are you?
Ms. Polak: At this stage we are not making a judgment. At this stage we believe that without the agreement in principle we do not have sufficient information to truly answer that question. We certainly are supportive of seeing land claims and treaties dealt with, both inside and outside of British Columbia's borders. The challenge, of course, is one that we face in other areas.
In fact when we talk about the Yale and the questions around it, questions with respect to Yale and questions with respect to Kaska Dena at Liard flow from the same reality, which is that at a certain point we as a country decided where the lines would be drawn on the map. With respect to Yale, we decided there was going to be a Yale Indian band here on these reserves. These are all artificial constructs. Nevertheless, we find ourselves attempting to resolve age-old issues of rights and title in a context in which we have drawn boundaries.
We are not making a judgment at this stage. We are saying that we believe when the AIP is put together between Liard and the federal government, then we will be able to assess the situation and determine what involvement British Columbia should have in that process. Again, we are certainly supportive of the overall idea of resolving these. Whether it involves a cross-boundary resolution or something individual per territory and province, we will have to assess that when we see the agreement in principle.
Senator Sibbeston: Why is it so important to you that there be an agreement in principle already? Could you not just deal with them as First Nations people who already have claims? You will have to at some point in the future anyway. Why not tomorrow? Why not next week? If I were to encourage the chief and their lawyer to go to Victoria next week or the week after, would I be able to come in and see you and urge you then to get to the negotiating table and just get things going?
Ms. Polak: I should correct myself. We are speaking of Acho Dene Koe. I am sure you can appreciate that as a minister of the Crown I have responsibilities in parallel that sometimes conflict. One of the areas of balance that I need to pay attention to is that while I have this overarching goal, as the Minister of Aboriginal Relations, to come to agreements with First Nations and resolve these issues, I also have an oath that I have sworn to protect the interests of the Crown and ensure that I am being responsible with the interests of the Crown and with any liabilities that the Crown might incur. It truly is a matter of trying to be open to the issues of discussion, but at the same time observe the fact that I have a responsibility to protect the Crown's interests.
It is not that there is no conversation taking place. At a staff level there is certainly communication around what is happening. There is discussion with the BC Treaty Commission. There is certainly interaction taking place. However, we do have to be cautious to the extent that we need to see what an agreement might entail, and then we can consider whether or not we would pursue it. It is a difficult balance. I will not argue with that. One of the challenges of our office is that while, on a human level, one wishes to simply sit around the table and resolve something simply, there are some larger issues at play that create precedent in other areas, so we need to exercise that caution.
The Chair: There is the reverse situation in Northern Saskatchewan as well, where Saskatchewan people are claiming in the Northwest Territories. They are having major challenges in dealing with that situation.
Senator Patterson: I have a couple of questions that will be directed to our federal government's representatives here tonight. The first is about the problem that I believe the Honourable Mary Polak addressed in her opening remarks about negotiators having a sufficient mandate to allow them to accept a proposal rather than returning to Ottawa. I want to quote from the Chief Commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission, Sophie Pierre, who appeared before our committee on October 25 last year. She was describing the treaty process:
. . . a real bureaucratic inertia has developed that causes lengthy delays. Federal negotiators and the whole bureaucracy seems to need to come back to Ottawa all the time to get approval on things as opposed to having the mandate to move things forward and actually close deals. We are looking for negotiators that can close deals.
She cited some examples of really great delays while the negotiator was waiting for instructions from superiors in Ottawa.
I am wondering whether I could ask our federal representatives if there is a problem with the limited mandate given to federal negotiators engaged in the B.C. treaty process. Do they need an expansion of the mandate? Would you have some comments on these observations, which I would say were made by both the province and the head of the treaty commission?
Ms. Montminy: That is a very good question. We have also heard from the head of the BC Treaty Commission that there is concern with respect to delays — in terms of having negotiators having to come and consult internally within the federal government with various federal departments — at different points in time during the course of negotiations.
As you know, there is no one-size-fits-all model for treaties. Canada is involved in negotiations in British Columbia but also across the country with various conferences on claims and self governance agreements. We have over 100 tables currently in negotiation. That is the volume that Canada carries right now. I believe 47 tables are in British Columbia. That is a significant proportion.
The negotiations carried out throughout the country vary significantly between provinces and territories. We allow for this in order to be able to represent the regional differences and realities of each part of the country. In B.C. there are unique features, such as small First Nations and significant overlapping claims. There are a number of challenges in B.C. that do not necessarily exist elsewhere. We have other challenges across the country.
Our negotiations are also subject to an evolving legal environment. When we began negotiation 20 years ago, there was a particular case line place. As this evolves, we continue to look at our mandates and ensure they are still appropriate to protect federal interests. The fact that federal negotiators have to come back to Ottawa from time to time is just the nature of the negotiation process. It is an interest-based process. If you look at framework agreements that are signed by the parties early in the process, they lay out a significant number of subject matters that are for negotiations between the parties. As the process evolves and the level of detail becomes more real, we need to ensure the arrangements being negotiated still address federal interests and the interests of several federal departments. We negotiate on behalf of all those federal departments — up to 34 of them— and with central agencies. It is the nature of things to ensure that what is being committed, and that will be ratified and part of a constitutionally protected agreement, meets all of the federal interests at play. As the negotiations progress and the level of detail increases, it is important that we keep ensuring the provisions are still the ones we want to see in a final agreement that will be constitutionally protected. The process could probably be streamlined and could be faster. We are certainly looking at ways to do this.
The Chair: If I recall correctly, there were criticisms in regard to this about how the federal negotiators did not go in as negotiators. They put their case on the table and virtually said there are no negotiations. That was brought up to us as well. That is really not negotiating. That is a "take it or leave it" type of scenario. I believe this was brought to our attention. If I may ask a supplementary, is there a comment to that from the federal people?
Ms. Montminy: Yes, in some areas. We have concluded 23 agreements across the country, and 16 of them include self-government arrangements. We have a lot of experience in this business. The Government of Canada has been in this for almost 40 years, since our program was developed in 1973. We have experience. We have also been in the business of implementing those treaties for a number of years. We have realized that in order to be able to do our job at implementing all of the obligations that flow from agreements, in some areas we need fairly consistent approaches. This is to ensure that beyond a negotiation phase, the relationship between the parties remains healthy and on a solid basis. This allows all parties to implement the obligations as they were understood at the time of the signing of the treaty. It is true in some areas. The Government of Canada has defined its interests fairly clearly. It may mean that it seems there is less flexibility in certain areas. However, I would say it is the case in any negotiation. I think any party comes to the table with certain things that they look for in an outcome or final agreement. Canada has defined those interests in certain areas more precisely over the years. We are open and transparent with First Nations now. We do not want them to incur debt while pretending that we can negotiate in areas where there is less flexibility than maybe there was before. We are putting those things on the table and explaining the rationale. We think it is an open and transparent way of conducting negotiations.
The Chair: I have a request for a supplementary from Senator Campbell. Are you in agreement with that, Senator Patterson?
Senator Patterson: By all means. I might have a further question.
Senator Campbell: I want to ensure I am clear on this. As your department works towards a healthy relationship, and in an open and transparent manner, it is acceptable to issue the clause "take it or leave it." Is that correct?
Ms. Montminy: I am not sure.
Senator Campbell: We were told by the witness that a negotiator from the federal government — from your ministry — would show up, lay the demands on the table, and tell them to take it or leave it: It is our way or the highway. You are telling me that you want a healthy relationship through negotiation. Being open and transparent, to me, does not seem to be "take it or leave it" and certainly has never been part of a negotiation in my experience. It cannot be both. It cannot be "take it or leave it" and tell me that it is a negotiation. If we compare this to a business in a union, you tell me to "take it or leave it" and I am either going to lock you out or I am going on strike. We have heard about this. In British Columbia, we hear about, "Maybe we will just take it or leave it" on the part of the First Nations. You are confirming this right here and now. Can you answer that for me?
Ms. Montminy: I do not have personal knowledge of what individual negotiators may have said at each of the tables. Obviously, that is beyond my personal knowledge. However, I can say that in some areas, federal interests have been defined very clearly. I do acknowledge that in some cases it might be that our negotiators are representing those interests in such a way at the table, not "take it or leave it." Again I am not acknowledging this, because I do not know that. However, we could present clear positions and interests behind those positions. I think that is very possible. With the vast range of issues that are being negotiated, there are certain areas where Canada has stated in its policy that we are requiring certain things, such as certainty. There will be no modern treaties where there are no certainty provisions. The very reason Canada is engaged in these negotiations is to be able to have a defined set of rights at the end of these negotiations. Certainty is one of the areas where we expect some provisions that would deal with this aspect.
Canada has also said that through self-government there will be a new fiscal relationship established between First Nations and the Crown. We do have different regimes in place that are part of these negotiations. That is also stated in our policy. Yes, there are certain areas that Canada has to address.
Senator Campbell: Those are not negotiations. Negotiations are where I put something on the table and you negotiate until you come to an agreement. A negotiation is not where I say, "This is what you are going to do, and if you do not do it, it is over." That is not a negotiation. I am sorry.
I will get a hold of the witnesses and I will bring you examples and ask you for answers on these, because this is not acceptable. It goes to all of the things that we see and hear going on. I think about the viability of your overall organization within this context. I do not know how many times I have heard the same thing in six years. There is an arrogance that overplays everything else.
I am sorry. It is just not acceptable. I will make sure that I get these questions to you.
The Chair: I would like the presenters to know that I do not sense any arrogance at all. I think your presentation is very candid and open, and we appreciate that at this committee.
Senator Sibbeston: I would like to ask about what the treaty commission said with respect to a bureaucratic stoppage or dam.
You must understand that the job of people like us, who are semi-politicians, is to help people in situations where there are stalemates or difficulties. Whenever Aboriginal Affairs comes before us, I never get a feeling of hope. I never get the feeling that things will progress. If things do progress, they do so at a very slow pace. It seems that you think in terms of 20, 30, 40 years.
You are a young person and you hold an important job. First Nations have said that there are problems. When we ask you about it, you give us no hope that there will be change, and that troubles me. You just cover yourselves. You just toe the federal line and give airy answers. We know that you have to protect the federal interests, but that is not the question.
The issue is that there are stoppages and blockages, and because of this First Nations are frustrated. What will you do about it? That is the question. Will you make a difference or will you just languish and look at your retirement in 30 or 40 years and not worry about what happens with this immediate problem?
Can you give us some hope?
Ms. Montminy: You should know that I personally am very hopeful that we will achieve success in British Columbia and across the country at many of the tables where we are currently engaged. My colleagues and I have been in this business for many years and we do believe that there is resolution. We see as well that these are extremely complex issues.
Senator Sibbeston: That is always the excuse that you use. It is complex; you have to protect the federal interests. That is not the question.
Ms. Montminy: We have to appreciate that negotiating a constitutionally protected agreement that will radically change the status quo, changing the regime for First Nations who were previously under the Indian Act for hundreds of years, creating Aboriginal government, changing ownership of and access to resources, trying to reconcile the interests of many governments do qualify as complex matters, and such things cannot be negotiated overnight. That is reality. We would like to go faster. I appreciate your comment that we need to do better, we need to be faster, we need to conclude deals in a way that will give everyone the outcomes and results they are looking for. We are committed to that.
Senator Sibbeston: You are the person who holds the key. You are the person who opens the door. You are the person who can make this substantive change that is needed in our country, so you have to be optimistic and believe that it can be done and not hide behind the fact that it is complex and life altering. That is what you are paid for. We know all that. Just get the job done. Would you agree?
Ms. Montminy: Absolutely. Again, our department is negotiating on behalf of the Government of Canada, and at the table we represent the interests of all of the federal departments.
Senator Sibbeston: I know that.
Ms. Montminy: I know you know that, but it is still the reality.
Senator Sibbeston: It is not an excuse.
Ms. Montminy: I am not making excuses. That is just the reality of how the system is structured.
The Chair: There is frustration. Having concluded only two or three agreements in 20 years, there is a level of frustration. The department has come under criticism. I do not see it as criticism of individuals but rather of overall policy. It is important to acknowledge that we are not dealing with individuals.
Senator Sibbeston: Now we know that it is she who is telling the negotiators, "Come back to Ottawa; do not make any decisions." We are altering things. It is the federal interest. I can understand that.
You are the person who is holding things back with your attitude.
The Chair: I am not sure what position Ms. Montminy holds, but I know there are several superiors above her.
Senator Campbell: I want to make it clear that there was nothing personal in what I was saying. When the Liberals were in government, I said exactly the same thing. This is not personal at all. This is the elephant.
Ms. Montminy: I appreciate that.
Senator Campbell: I believe that you are doing your job. I believe you are working hard. I believe that you do want things to happen. It is not you; it is the elephant. I want to make it clear that there is nothing personal at all.
The Chair: That is kind of you, Senator Campbell.
Senator Patterson: I have one supplementary question. You spoke about the federal interests. My understanding is that interest-based negotiations require that the negotiator look at the interests of the opposing party as well, and that is why we want to reach out to the other side rather than taking a firm position. A clear concern of the treaty commission was that our federal negotiators were coming with positions undoubtedly based on the federal interest, but they were not looking at the interests of the opposing party. We want to get away from that labour-style confrontational negotiation to true interest-based negotiations. I endorse what my colleagues have just said on that subject. Look at a fresh approach.
The B.C. minister talked about B.C.'s belief in pursuing incremental agreements to allow First Nations to realize the benefits of shared economic agreements and increased capacity. This seems to have created some momentum. The honourable minister said that Canada's participation in these agreements would greatly improve our collective ability to take these agreements and build final agreements.
Do our federal representatives have any comment on the approach of small steps leading to progress and a speedier outcome to help move things along? What is Canada's position on that?
Ms. Boscariol: Canada has been supportive of British Columbia's incremental approach to treaties. We have not been a party to the incremental agreements; they have been bilateral agreements. However, we do review every proposed incremental agreement that B.C. brings to our attention on a case-by-case basis. Where we feel that what British Columbia has presented is an approach tied to milestones to making progress in the treaty process, we do agree to ultimately cost share the cost of the early land that is the subject of the incremental agreement. At the end of the process, once there is a treaty, we will agree to cost share whatever early land was provided as part of the overall agreement. Thus far, we have been looking at these incremental approaches on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Patterson: Very quick supplementary, and that will be to the Honourable Minister. You just heard the answer. Is that what you were looking for when you said Canada's participation in these agreements would greatly improve our ability to move forward? Is that enough?
Ms. Polak: What has been described is the situation that currently exists, and full compliments to Canada; the incremental treaty agreement idea is one that we launched fairly recently in the history of these discussions, and Canada has been cooperative in coming on board with cost sharing at the end when it is attached to treaties.
Our suggestion — and I hope this comes across in the way it is intended. There truly is not an adversarial relationship as we go down this path. We have been having very positive discussions with the federal ministry as they relate to our ideas in this area.
To give you an example of where we could go further, one of the non-treaty agreements that we use in British Columbia with some great success are what we call "strategic engagement agreements." They involve outlining defined means of consultation or what constitutes consultation. They define timelines for different processes, such as permitting. Essentially, it lays out a map for how the parties will make decisions together on the land base.
For example, in a situation where there might be a major project that the federal government has its own approval processes for, they would do that when it is finished. British Columbia would then, in the case of a First Nation, employ the processes with them, which we have in place through that agreement, already well defined and much more streamlined, and it certainly brings the First Nation directly into the dialogue around land use decisions in their territories.
That is one example of a place where we think there would be useful increased involvement of the Government of Canada that could advance interests for all involved.
I think there are opportunities through the many non-treaty tools that British Columbia has developed. I think there are many other areas in which the federal government's involvement would be valuable and beneficial not just for First Nations in British Columbia but also for Canada.
Senator Raine: Thank you. I would like to go back to the overlapping claims issue.
While I appreciate how complicated the negotiations are with all the different aspects that have to come together in a treaty, it seems to me that when it comes to overlapping claims, you need to be dealing with the two parties that are overlapping and put in place a system or a process where they can decide on this for themselves. I think that is what the British Columbia government would like to do. I am wondering if there is any way we can take the experiences we have from the past to do this.
I was noting that two days before the effective date of the Maa-nulth treaty, an accord was signed between the Tseshaht and Maa-nulth First Nations on their respective rights in the Barkley Sound after they had unsuccessfully sought an injunction against the treaty. In that process, we must have learned something. I am sure there are other things. For instance, in the Yale treaty, we are also learning things.
Is it possible to put in place some kind of a think-tank expertise base in British Columbia to assist First Nations in negotiating between themselves the overlapping claims?
Ms. Polak: This is one of the areas that we of course discuss regularly with our federal counterparts and also with Sophie Pierre and the BC Treaty Commission.
With respect to Maa-nulth, that was a couple of days before implementation. It is difficult to say in terms of the motivations that are represented in any negotiation whether or not one could convince someone to relinquish that positioning prior to getting that close to the treaty existing, so how do we work together. That is a complicated piece of negotiation, whether it is for treaties or a labour negotiation; you are waiting to see if there is still room to move or to shift people's positions.
With that said, we recognize that as we have gone through this process a number of times now, we need to deal with overlap issues earlier in the process. We are still navigating our way through the question of who is ultimately responsible to guide that process. Ultimately, there is agreement from all three parties, including the First Nations Summit, that it should be First Nations who deal with those issues themselves.
It is complicated by the fact that our European notions of land and ownership are fundamentally different from what First Nations culture had evolved into over time, so our requirements are really what drive the overlap because we require that someone draw a line that determines where my land ends and where yours begins.
In asking First Nations to then cast their histories back to before contact and where their traditional lands were, it is probably eminently truthful that their lands were here and here, because there was a system that was entirely different in its basis to ours.
I do think the solution rests with First Nations confronting that. We have a role to play. I do not think we have quite yet found where the best roles for Canada and for British Columbia are, but I do believe, in terms of giving hope, that there is goodwill on the part of all. When we have these discussions, I do not sense acrimony about it. We are all solution-oriented. It is just that land is so foundational to the discussions with First Nations. It would be difficult to choose another issue that raises more passion than land itself.
We recognize that we need to play a role. I do not think we have yet found the best place to act that out.
Senator Raine: Is it possible in modern-day treaties to have lands designated as shared?
Ms. Polak: It is possible. Of course, that requires the agreement of all parties as well. There are in fact different types of lands involved in treaty; there are not just treaty settlement lands, but there are also lands designated for certain uses by First Nations, where we recognize they have rights to certain activities in perpetuity.
However, again, the challenge with that is that you do not ultimately resolve the question. At least, we have not yet found language that would give all parties comfort that we have reached a final resolution.
There is currently non-derogation language in treaties. For example, with respect to the Yale final agreement, there is non-derogation language that if indeed in the future Stó:lo were to exert their traditional rights on land that was affected by the Yale final agreement, the agreement is to be read so as not to infringe on those rights. The First Nations who are concerned about this would rightly point out that that language has yet to be tested in a court.
In many ways, we are together with First Nations finding where the path is. The encouraging part on the overlap issue is that we all want to get to the same place. There is not a dispute as to what the ultimate end is. It is who has what role to get there. I think there is acceptance that it is First Nations' ultimate responsibility, but that murkiness still arises around where best can Canada and British Columbia assist.
Senator Demers: Ms. Polak, at the beginning of your presentation you mentioned that not everyone is involved who participates in a treaty.
If you want a treaty that will work for everyone, if you have people who do not participate, you will never be able to bring everyone together and work it out to have a good treaty. You cannot have a team where 15 people are working for the same goal and the other 7 are not. How will you be able to bring everyone together? I see it is not very easy.
Ms. Polak: It is not easy. We have 203 First Nations in British Columbia, and about one third of those are not involved in treaty in any way, shape or form. I believe many of those could be encouraged and brought into involvement with treaty, but I also believe that there are a certain number of First Nations in British Columbia who will likely never have an interest in treaty.
How do you do it? First, for those First Nations who are involved in treaty, they of course have to have community ratification, and their community has to be fully in support of that treaty in order for it to be then sent to the province and to Canada to ratify.
For those treaties that are concluded, as a result of a pretty high requirement in terms of vote percentage, we certainly have that community support and we recognize that is essential in order for it to be sustainable.
I do believe that as we put more treaties into the concluded column that we will in turn attract greater interest from First Nations into the process. Many First Nations watch as over the years debts accumulate because, of course, First Nations borrow money through a process that is outlined. That money is then intended to be taken out of the capital transfer that the federal government would eventually put forward at the end of a final agreement. The potential for there to be years of negotiation not leading to conclusion is one that frightens very many First Nations, who see some of their counterparts reaching debt levels that might indeed surpass what their eventual capital transfer might be, or at least reduce it significantly.
I believe as we see more in the win column, we will see a greater number of First Nations interested because success breeds success.
I also believe that we must not ignore the need to find resolution with First Nations who are not interested in treaty. It is a voluntary process. It must be, in order to be fair and in order to recognize the principles outlined in our Charter and the founding of our nation. At the same time, we cannot simply respond to that positioning by not dealing with them. We have to find alternative ways of reaching reconciliation and resolution.
There are many options. There are new ones that we are attempting in British Columbia and there are many that have been experienced over years past with the self-governance agreements that the federal government negotiates, some that are bilateral, others that do involve British Columbia.
Get the treaties going. Get them moving. Get some in the win column. That in turn will attract greater interest from First Nations, but also let us be honest and confront the question of how we will deal in a comprehensive way with those First Nations who are not ever going to enter into treaty. Let us not pretend that they will.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have heard from the three parties that are involved. We have heard from Commissioner Pierre of the BC Treaty Commission. We heard from the federal government and we have also heard from the provincial government.
The question we were asked was, should the mandate be renewed? Is there a yes? Everyone is shaking their heads.
Senator Patterson: They are nodding their heads, I think.
The Chair: Nodding them, I guess that is better. I do need help from time to time, Senator Patterson. Thank you.
I want to thank the four of you for your participation here this evening. Your presentations were excellent. Your responses to the questions were open and candid. It is refreshing to deal with this in the manner that we have. Hopefully, this committee will come up with a recommendation that is beneficial to the Aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.
Senators, at the next meeting I will have a report as to the acceptance of our educational report. I will have people here and the information so that you will be aware of how this has evolved since it has been reported and has been delivered to the constituency that we are trying to serve.
Senator Patterson: Will that be in camera?
The Chair: Most likely that portion of it will be in camera.
(The committee adjourned.)