Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 23 - Evidence - December 8, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:32 a.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order.
Good morning. I welcome all honourable senators, members of the public and all viewers across the country who are watching on CPAC or on the web these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
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. This gives the committee a broad scope to look into issues of all types that touch on matters of concern to First Nations, Metis and Inuit.
The purpose of the public portion of today's meeting is to obtain a briefing from the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs and Gitxsan Treaty Society about the Gitxsan alternative governance model, which they have proposed as a means of reconciling their interests with those of British Columbia and Canada.
After we have had time for questions, we will proceed to an in-camera session, during which we will consider future business.
[Translation]
Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to introduce to you the committee members who are in attendance today.
[English]
On my left is Senator Brazeau from Quebec. Next to him are Senator Raine from British Columbia and Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island. On my right is Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan, Senator Patterson from Nunavut and Senator Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses. We have with us today Mr. Elmer Derrick, Chief Negotiator for the Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs. He is joined by colleagues from the Gitxsan Treaty Society; namely, Gordon Sebastian, Executive Director and Negotiator; Bev Clifton Percival, Negotiator; Gordon Gibson, Adviser; and Tex Enemark, Adviser.
What a fine group of British Columbians. It does not get any better.
Mr. Derrick, I will ask you to make a presentation. I understand there will possibly be three of you who will speak. Mr. Derrick, you have the floor.
Elmer Derrick, Chief Negotiator, Gitxsan Hereditary Chiefs: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to thank the Senate committee for allowing us to speak with you this morning. We are here in Ottawa to try to impress upon the government that we need to have a new mandate for our treaty and reconciliation table.
We have been in treaty negotiations for a couple of decades now, and we feel it is time for the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia to accommodate our interests and to accommodate the mandate that we are seeking.
It is important for us to tell you the details of what we are asking the Government of Canada for. Therefore, we have forwarded all of our documents to you. I do not think they have all been translated, but we have forwarded several documents that my colleague negotiator, Bev Clifton Percival, will speak to.
As a part of my introductory remarks, I wanted to make some comments with respect to where we have been over the past several decades. A few of us from home, from the Gitxsan Nation, were involved in trying to get changes to the Canadian Constitution in the late 1970s. I was part of a team that was successful in getting section 35 into the Constitution Act, 1982.
After 1982, we started to find our way into Canada. We started the Delgamuukw v. The Queen in 1984 and went into court in 1987. We appeared before the Honourable Chief Justice Allan McEachern, and his judgment came down in 1991. We went to the British Columbia Court of Appeal and got what I believe to be a landmark decision in 1997 from the Supreme Court of Canada.
The path that we have followed since then has been focused on negotiating our way into this country. We are always mindful of the objective that our chiefs have directed us to seek, namely, to build a better country. We want to build a better Canada, and we are committed to building a better Canada within the legal framework of this country.
Our chiefs are committed to the full acceptance of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. We recognize in full the powers, responsibilities and authorities of Canada under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. We also recognize the authorities and powers of British Columbia under section 92 of the same. We bring to the negotiating table our foundation that is built on the section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 that recognizes and affirms our Gitxsan rights.
We went into the court, not to try to destroy or take away anything from this country, but to establish a foundation for ourselves. We believe that the Delgamuukw decision is a firm foundation that we can build upon to be a part of this country. We are now asking for the honour of the Crown to meet us halfway in terms of better public policy. There are some very serious issues that we are making a presentation on to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tomorrow. Therefore, we wanted to be able to explain this to the Senate committee because you deal with many of these issues as a part of your responsibility to Parliament. We need your help, so we are here to appeal to you today to help track us in developing this very serious public policy.
Before I hand off the responsibility of the presentation to my colleagues here, I wanted to read the decision that came out of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1991. It was a very serious piece of legal history. The Chief Justice McEachern, at that time, added some comments to his judgment. I wanted to read a few paragraphs from the comment; namely, Part 22 of the Delgamuukw judgment from 1991.
He says:
Assuming that discussions between both governments and the Indians will continue, I respectfully offer the following for their consideration.
The parties have concentrated for too long on legal and constitutional questions such as ownership, sovereignty, and "rights," which are fascinating legal concepts. Important as these questions are, answers to legal questions will not solve the underlying social and economic problems which have disadvantaged Indian peoples from the earliest times.
Indians have had many opportunities to join mainstream Canadian economic and social life. Some Indians do not wish to join, but many cannot. They are sometimes criticized for remaining Indian, and some of them in turn have become highly critical of the non-Indian community.
This increasingly cacophonous dialogue about legal rights and social wrongs has created a positional attitude with many exaggerated allegations and arguments, and a serious lack of reality. Surely it must be obvious that there have been failings on both sides. The Indians have remained dependent for too long. Even a national annual payment of billions of dollars on Indian problems, which undoubtedly ameliorates some hardship, will not likely break this debilitating cycle of dependence.
The next paragraph I want to read says:
Some Indians say they cannot live under the paternalism and regulation of the Indian Act, but neither can many of them live without the benefits it provides. Some Indians object to the imposed Band structure created by the Act but it would be foolish to discard it until something acceptable to a majority of the Indians has been fashioned to take its place.
He goes on to speak about the plaintiffs in this Delgamuukw court case:
Compared with many Indian Bands in the province, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en peoples have already achieved a relatively high level of social organization.
In the court case, we presented who we were, what we stand upon and where we wanted to go.
They have a number of promising leaders, a sense of purpose and a likely ability to move away from dependence if they get the additional assistance they require. . . . I am impressed that the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en are ready for an intelligent new arrangement with both levels of government.
That is what we have been negotiating for the past two decades.
The last two paragraphs I want to read say:
There must, of course, be an accommodation on land use which is an ongoing matter on which it will not be appropriate for me to offer any comment except to say again that the difficulties of adapting to changing circumstances, not limited land use, is the principal cause of Indian misfortune.
Lastly, I wish to emphasize that while much remains to be done, a reasonable accommodation is not impossible. After the last appeal, however, the remaining problems will not be legal ones. Rather they will remain, as they have always been, social and economic ones.
That is what we tried to address in the letter we sent to Minister Strahl, which is included in your package.
My colleague will continue with the presentation.
Bev Clifton Percival, Negotiator, Gitxsan Treaty Society:
(The witness spoke in her native language.)
My name is Bev Clifton Percival. I come from the house of Hanamuuxw, from the village of Gitsegukla from the Gitxsan territories. Good morning to each you and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I will be speaking from a PowerPoint presentation of which you have copies. Just as an overview of the presentation, I will talk about the Gitxsan basics — Gitxsan decision making, watersheds and policies, treaty negotiation activity and a reconciliation model.
I will move to Slide 2. Gitxsan society is matrilineal; that is, membership to and inheritance of property follows the mother's side. When you are a Gitxsan, you are born of a Gitxsan woman.
The most fundamental entity of Gitxsan society is the wilnaatahl, sometimes referred to as the wilp, singular, or huwilp, plural. These are Gitxsan terms for house groups. These are traditional, large extended families, each with a population estimated between 200 and 600 people. Each wilp, or house group, holds two to five lineages that determine rank within the wilp of the simoogit — which is the chief or head of the house — wing chiefs and membership. We come from a matrilineal society that is ranking and is determined by lineage and blood line.
On the characteristics of Gitxsan society, most important is the liligit, which is our word for feast hall. This is where one witnesses the daxgyet, which is our word for power, of the Gitxsan through a protocol that publicly declares wilp business for witness and endorsement of the huwilp gali ax Gitxsan. Any business we do as Gitxsan is done in a public fashion, and it is endorsed by the people who come to the feast to witness the business that we carry out. Much forethought and planning takes place before a feast is held. It is not entered into lightly because we need to have the support from many different levels. You will see that as I progress through the presentation to talk about our decision making and how we carry out our business.
All of this is dictated by ayokim Gitxsan, which is our word for own laws. We are an oral society, with laws that have been the same since the beginning of time. These ancient laws dictate the conduct of the Gitxsan simgiigyet, or the chiefs who are the head of the houses, and the other house groups, the huwilp, around inheritance, succession, marriage, adoption, access to property, territory and its resources, trespass, injury, redress of injury and other nation business.
A fundamental term for us is gwalyeinsxw; this is our word for inheritance. Each Gitxsan house has its wealth in inheritance assets that are real and unreal, handed down from generation to generation forever, never diminished or extinguished — the wilnaatahl, which is the house itself; the lax yip, the territories that belong to the house; and the adaawx, the oral history. That connects each house to their territory. The ayook, which are their crests that are theirs to wear; the limx ooii, which are their sacred songs; the waaimp taa, which are the names that are part of that house — these are parts of the gwalyeinsxw, or the inheritance of the wilp and the huwilp, and collectively as a nation. In each of the houses, they have the lands, resources, names, songs and crests; and all that is part of their inheritance that they must pass on to the next generation.
These are some of the important dates for the Gitxsan. It was not until the late 1800s that we had first contact. The Indian Act was not implemented in our area until around 1951. At the beginning of the Indian Act, the elected officials were often the hereditary chiefs of that particular community. It was not until the 1970s that there was a change with the free vote, et cetera.
In 1977, the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en, their neighbours to the east, created a declaration of their sovereignty, rights and title. In 1984, the writ for Delgamuukw and Gisday'wa was filed, which was the first court case. In 1987, the court commenced in May for Delgamuukw and Gisday'wa.
The court case actually began in Smithers, with Justice McEachern travelling back and forth to Smithers. However, he soon tired of the journey and moved the entire case to Vancouver, at which time the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en had to raise the funds to bring the witnesses back and forth for the court proceedings. The court went on for over 300 days; and in 1991, the first decision was passed down, as Mr. Derrick talked about; that was March 8, 1991. It was a devastating decision for the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en because Justice McEachern had not heard any of the evidence that they had put before him. As a result, the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en went before the B.C. Court of Appeal in 1993, where they received a decision that overturned some of what Justice McEachern had dismissed. However, it was not enough, so in June 1997, the Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en came to Ottawa for one and a half days of hearings before the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the interim between 1993 and 1997, both the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en had to separate politically and enter the treaty process as their own nations. It is important to note that we entered into the treaty process as a hereditary people because we are the proper title holders of the land. It is different than some of the other nations that have entered as First Nations; we entered as hereditary people. In December 1997, the Supreme Court decision was favourable to us. As a result, we tried to hold reconciliation talks with the Crown right of British Columbia. We achieved a reconciliation agreement, but that agreement focused primarily on lands and resources.
As well, when we went to the treaty process, we were the first table toasted by the province because we would not accept the land selection model that they had offered. Between 1995 and 2001, we had a series of negotiations around reconciliation, and, in 2001, we returned to the treaty table. In 2002, we took the British Columbia Minister of Forests to court over the transfer of the new Skeena licence in which we were successful. In the court decision, Justice Tysoe ruled that the Gitxsan had prima facie rights and title to parts of their territories. As a result, we have had court-ordered negotiations around forestry issues.
In June 2003, we had the Interim Forestry Agreement with the Minister of Forests, which is part of those court-ordered negotiations. In August 2006, we achieved a short-term forestry negotiation agreement with the Minister of Forests. We are about to begin negotiations on a long-term forestry agreement to complete a series of negotiations dealing with Justice Tysoe's 2002 decision.
In the spring of 2007, we were part of the environmental assessment panel that dealt with Kemess Mine. In its decision, the panel recognized our law for peace and our oral histories. Since 2006, we have had the reconciliation and exploration process with B.C. and Canada on our treaty table.
In terms of decision making of the wilp — the house group — issues can be brought forward from many sources and can be debated openly in the house. Sayt giim goot, to be of one heart, is sought and this becomes the position of the wilp, or house group. Advice is sought from the nigwoot, which is our father side, and niidihl, which is the opposite clan in our community. Consensus of the greater benefit of the collective interests is used when we make decisions as a house.
Those decisions would move up to the gal tsup, our word for community. The respective huwilp, or house groups, of the gal tsup will meet to state their positions. The simoogit, or head of the house, may speak or may have a squinlitxwt, a speaker who does the speaking for them. We will achieve consensus at the community level.
From there, we go up to the assembly of the huwilp gali aaxs Gitxsan, which means all the Gitxsan house groups, where we hear the house positions, the report on community meetings, and full debate can occur on an issue again. We identify at this point if sayt giim goot, to be of one heart, is present, and if it is, there will be determination of an implementation plan for a decision on behalf of the Gitxsan. First and foremost is the collectivity of all decisions.
Throughout this process, complex relationships exist and connections are very intricate. Terms for extended family and roles are clearly delineated. I come from the house of Hanamuuxw, and I have a father side and a grandfather side. I am a father side to some, and I am a grandfather side to others. When decision making occurs, all these things have to be taken into consideration. It is not entered into lightly. We have to think of the collective interests and positions expressed in the decision-making process. There must be support at all levels — within the house, within the community and amongst all the huwilp, house groups, before a decision is implemented. No one group can be completely independent; our system is interdependent because of its social responsibilities to other house members and house groups.
I will move to a visual representation of the decision making. We have wilsaleks, the father side; gal tsup, the community; gali aaks Gitxsan, all of the Gitxsan house groups; and niidihl, the opposite clan in the community. In my community, I am a fireweed, or gisgaast, and my niidihl is the frog, or ganeda. Your niidihl, opposite clan, must support the decisions you make. When our house makes a decision, we must have support from within our house, from our niidihl, from our father side and from the community. It then goes to the nation, where we must have support before a decision is moved forward.
I will move on to the impacts on the Gitxsan. The Gitxsan have experienced the full force of colonialism from flu epidemics, tuberculosis outbreaks, residential schools, welfare sweeps of the 1970s, institutionalized racism, to the policies of the Crown designed to assimilate them completely into Euro-society. Despite this, our ancestors held firm and actively resisted these continuous and repeated attacks on their oojin, their personal spirit. Our ancestors held firm to our teachings, during the bands of the potlatches, they were held in a variety of forms; the teachings were never given up. Our business and our nation continued to move forward.
The Gitxsan have pursued everything from our own system. We show our respect to each house group through their head chiefs and members. We hold names that are eternal. New people take on the responsibility, but the names live on. This is different than the imposed Indian Act chiefs who are changed every two years. We are an ancient people who will go on forever. Our names are some of the oldest on the Northwest Coast. They are more than 10,000 years old.
Sustainable watershed planning has been the main tool advanced to articulate Gitxsan interests. Our territories cover 33,000 square kilometres. We have nine watersheds: Upper Skeena, Middle Skeena, Suskwa, Sustut, Babine, Kispiox, Nass, Gitsegukla and Lower Skeena. The Delgamuukw decision in 1997 provided good tools for this process. For example, the existence of rights and title; reconciliation of the pre-existence of Gitxsan society with the Crown; exclusive use and occupation of our lands; the right to choose to what uses the lands may be put, including a concept of sustainability that aligns with our laws and beliefs; an economic component to our right; and a right to earn a modest living. This is the foundation of the work with which we have moved forward with respect to reconciliation with the Crown.
The principles guiding our watershed planning are full-cost accounting; environmental assessment, which is key; and ecosystem management. It involves a five-stage process that creates a process to articulate our interests. It provides for sustainable planning and has spin-offs for the entire region. Inheritance, or gwalyeinsxw, is the sustainability of the Gitxsan and involves the protection of the people, the land and the culture.
Over the last five years, we have done much work around policy. We have taken the time to create policies based on who we are as Gitxsan, while creating an opportunity to reconcile those interests with Crown legislative objectives. We have taken the legislative objectives of the Crown and our interests to try to create an area of common ground where we can work together to make plans and decisions on the territories for development or other purposes.
Our policies are on water, including fish; oil and gas; forestry; and, more recently, we are finalizing policies on minerals and wildlife. We have undertaken these efforts to find common ground to work together in implementing our interests on decision making, economics and sustainability on Gitxsan territories.
The policies look at the environment and biodiversity, pollution and contaminants, and protection measures. They are based on our inherent right to decide land use and management of the resources. They look at the conduct of user groups, and they also deal with compliance and enforcement of Gitxsan policies, which is part of our own laws; we have the laws of access, trespass and destruction, and they are implemented into the policies.
I will move to page 10, Gitxsan interests and engagement. The policies provide a framework to engage the Gitxsan, simgiigyet and huwilp. Being engaged in the watershed planning, we have had the opportunity to engage with industry, both from the individual wilp, or house level, and the huwilp, or the watershed level.
Currently, we have interest in power projects. We have been working actively on the Northwest Transmission Line and the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline does not go directly through our territories, but we have an interest should there be any problems in the project itself. We are open to exploring joint ventures that can accommodate our interests and engage in respectful partnerships that are mutually beneficial.
We have undertaken financial investment in oil-and-gas-identification technology. We have a short-term forestry agreement with the Crown, and an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada that is more than 20 years old, where they recognize the hereditary chiefs, our fishing sites and our ability to provide scientific data. It is our data that is used as part of the allocation process on the Skeena tributary.
We have purchased a major forest licence within our territories and entered into joint ventures by watershed. We have a co-gen project in one of our watersheds. There has been mining exploration agreements achieved with watersheds, chiefs and house groups. We have done fisheries ventures, and we have had inland fishing for more than 15 years, each summer, for the house groups on the fishing sites. We have people talking to us about pellet-plant initiatives. More recently, we signed an MOU on carbon credits with the premier's office in British Columbia, and we look forward to that project.
Slide 11 gives you a visual map of the Gitxsan territories, the nine distinct watersheds and the 33,000 square kilometres of territory. Each watershed has entered into an inter-wilp agreement, which means they recognize each other as being members of that watershed and agree to work collectively on issues of collective interest. Each watershed has also signed a watershed trust document, again acknowledging each wilp and territory and that they will move together on issues. Accommodation of Gitxsan interests is the goal of reconciliation in agreement with Crown or third parties.
The objective is to protect the Gitxsan huwilp, to protect our section 35 rights and lawmaking within the structure of section 91 and 92 of the Constitution, 1867 with the proviso of full accommodation of our interests. The Gitxsan hereditary system includes our own governance structure that we use for ourselves. The Gitxsan can continue under the Canadian Constitution rather than the "Gitxsan Constitution," which is part of the current treaty model.
I will now go through some of activity that has happened on the treaty table. In June 2006 at a chief negotiators meeting, we asked for a lockdown session to begin to look at the hard issue of governance and to the look at the lack of our wanting to have the land selection or modified rights. We sent a letter to the federal and provincial sides. The British Columbia Treaty Commission, BCTC, took the lead upon our request.
It was not until March of the following year that we received agreement from all that we could proceed. Chief Commissioner Stephen Point agreed to facilitate the process with the Gitxsan, Canada and British Columbia. The first meeting was held in April 2007. It was not a process as definitive as we had expected it to be because we had wanted to look at constitutional law and current case law. Nonetheless, we took the opportunity.
Slide 13 covers more in-depth discussions. Under current treaties, the general provisions of each treaty sign away the section 35 rights. As well, they give up the protection of section 91.24. There is no legal protection of the "Constitution" that they are asked to provide and to endorse for First Nations.
In terms of the issue, British Columbia restricts Gitxsan governance to "Gitxsan lands." This is an infringement on our perspective and lacks accommodation. Canada views the "Gitxsan Constitution" operating on Gitxsan lands, which are more or less reserves, and the Gitxsan are not interested in that. The only Gitxsan lands under this process would be 3 per cent of the traditional territories; that would be 3 per cent of 33,000 square kilometres. This is another infringement that lacks accommodation.
I will move to the current landscape on treaties. People have signed away sections 35 and 91.24. First Nations must accept the transfer of section 91.24 to section 92, fee simple. There is no change of government mandates at our tables because of this. Taikeke Alfred characterizes it as surrendering rights for money, and it has knocked out the intent of the New Relationship, which is the British Columbia agreement, and killed the Transformative Change Accord.
The first real movement we had in our facilitated process with the British Columbia Treaty Commission was British Columbia to provide a list of principles for Gitxsan governance; Canada to provide a list of principles for Gitxsan government; and the Crown needs to review direction with their mandates; that is, policies and legislation.
The opportunity we see is to create a system that gives full recognition of the Gitxsan within section 35 and as a hereditary people. It does not limit or infringe upon our rights in order to get a treaty, as it is a means of reconciliation but should not infringe us in the process. This goes to the Delgamuukw decision, which talks about the reconciliation with the Crown with the pre-existence of Gitxsan society. We should not have to change to achieve reconciliation with the Crown.
Next, we have a diagram. On the left side is the current situation where we have delegated powers. On the right side, our goal is to have a more effective relationship with the Crown that we may interface on government-to-government decisions on land use and planning.
You also have another diagram that shows the gim litxwid, all the houses of the Gitxsan and how they would oversee the lands and resource management issues. Within that, you will find a division for each of the policy areas that we have done work on.
I have a quote from Gwis Gyen, Delgamuukw, 1987:
All Gitksan people use a common law. This is like an ancient tree that has grown the roots right deep into the ground. This is the way our law is. It's sunk; this big tree's roots are sunk deep into the ground, and that's how our law is.
You then have pictures of houses on the Gitxsan territory, as well as a map, which is the map we used in court. I will now turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Gibson.
Gordon Gibson, Adviser, Gitxsan Treaty Society: Chair and senators, it is an honour to be here as a member of the Gitxsan negotiating team. You have heard something of the history, culture and society of the Gitxsan. My job today is to describe the Gitxsan position to governments from a constitutional perspective, because we are truly blazing a new trail in reconciliation in this country.
We accept and respect the Constitution Act of Canada, as Chief Derrick said, and we accept the responsibilities of Canada and British Columbia under sections 91 and 92. As Gitxsan, we claim our rights flowing from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms available to all Canadians; section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982; and common law as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw and other rulings. The task for all our negotiators is to reconcile these realities in a constructive way.
We have always been Gitxsan from time immemorial and we claim the right to continue as Gitxsan in free and voluntary association under the Charter, under our traditions, ayook, or law, and the leadership of the our simgiigyet, or hereditary chiefs.
We wish to cease being Indians. We were made Indians long ago by the Government of Canada without our permission. As a result, we were restricted to small parcels of land and our traditional territories were unlawfully taken, exploited and, in many cases, ruined for generations. An alien system of governance and regulation was imposed upon us under the Indian Act that resulted in the poverty and misery of the people. We wish this to end.
Throughout our territory, we wish an end to Indian governments with authority over Gitxsan. We seek an end to the federal subsidies payable to band governments and a transfer of these funds and such others as may be required to the province to accept their responsibility to us as ordinary citizens.
We wish our political rights henceforth to be and be governed as ordinary Canadians and British Columbians voting in elections, paying taxes, receiving services and obeying laws.
We appreciate that such an important change has complexities and will have implications for thousands of persons. There are 13,000 Gitxsan within our territory and many neighbours of other nations, and others. We wish to work our way through these changes in full consultation with all parties, with the intention of equity and fairness to all concerned.
As this process unfolds, we believe it will be the responsibility of the governments who caused our problems and allowed the exploitation of our resources to provide the financial and other support necessary to right the wrongs of the past. We say this must be done urgently because every month that passes sees a continuation of poverty, suicide, inadequate health and education, wasting of our territory and the lack of jobs for our people.
We have asked British Columbia, and on this visit we ask Canada, to set a target of one year to reach an agreement in principle on these issues.
To assist in securing our future under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada, we claim our Delgamuukw rights over Gitxsan territory. As the court has explained, these rights were activated at the declaration of British sovereignty over British Columbia in 1846.
The rights under law inhere in the occupants of the lands at that time, which were then and continue today by unbroken succession to be represented by the Gitxsan hereditary chiefs. The chiefs are the proper holders of rights and title on behalf of the Gitxsan. The territories of each of the chiefs and of the nation have been set out and recognized in full detail by the court and are carefully demarcated.
The British Columbia Treaty Commission, Canada and British Columbia have all recognized the chiefs as the negotiating authorities. After 163 years of sovereignty, decades since negotiations first began and 12 years after the ruling of Delgamuukw, we believe it is time for all of us to accept our responsibilities to bring matters to an agreed conclusion, hopefully by negotiations.
The above are the constitutional principles that we believe must guide the federal Crown, provincial Crown and ourselves. We say that these principles are right for us. We take no position on the process of reconciliation with other nations in other parts of the province.
As a progress report, working with the representatives of the Crown, we have made considerable progress over the past 18 months. However, further developments are now blocked, pending an expansion of the mandates of federal and provincial negotiators to encompass our approach. By way of explanation, the current mandates are limited to the standard treaty model, which does not suit our purposes.
British Columbia has agreed to review its mandate authority to this end, and we are asking Canada to do the same, and to do it urgently. In addition to the revised mandate, progress will require that both governments lift the Gitxsan negotiations out of the standard treaty track and assign them to senior officials with instructions to devote all necessary resources to this opportunity; and the Gitxsan will be ready.
Reconciliation with the Gitxsan along these lines would genuinely constitute a major achievement for all parties. For the Gitxsan, a long darkness will be lifted, and they will be once again empowered to thrive and prosper by their own efforts with their own social system and culture.
For governments, a shining example will be available to an increasingly impatient Canadian public as to what can be done with imagination, cooperation and goodwill. This will engage, I underline, the largest nation in British Columbia with 13,000 members.
The essentials of our approach are as follows. As to governance, Gitxsan persons would no longer be subject to any form of coercive Indian government. The reserve system would be abolished. This function would be assumed by the usual municipal, regional, provincial and federal authorities in their normal spheres of authority. As to responsibility, Gitxsan persons would pay taxes and obey laws as any other British Columbian.
As to entitlement, Gitxsan persons would receive standard provincial services, supplemented as necessary to assist in areas where our people have been woefully underserved in the past. There would be a traditional capital grant to accommodate changes and provide for the future; together with the implementation of our Delgamuukw rights, including fee simple parcels for individual Gitxsan for residential purposes, collective fee simple lands for Gitxsan collective purposes, which include economic, cultural and recreational, and the fruits of our resources and other revenues as negotiated with governments from the balance of the territory.
As to entitlements, governments, on the other hand, would receive the certainty that comes from a full and final agreement with binding ratification from each party and the ability to routinely manage the remaining Crown portion of the territory under the terms of the final agreement. Further, as to entitlements, we believe all parties would benefit from the economic development flowing from certainty and the employment of the capital grant.
As to scope, the agreement would apply to the two Crowns, to all Gitxsan chiefs and their territories and to all persons defined as Gitxsan for the purposes of the agreement.
As to ratification, the method remains open for discussion, but clearly it must be capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny as conveying the clear, strong and authentic assent of the Gitxsan people.
We believe that describes the major areas of discussion. We have resolved to go ahead with the governments in a cooperative mode with a determination to get this agreement done. We have had wonderful movement by British Columbia and are hoping for the same from Canada in response to our proposals.
The Chair: I thank all of you for your excellent presentations. Unfortunately, I think we were rushing Ms. Percival, but time is our biggest enemy here, as we all know.
My office has received some contact from people of the Gitxsan Nation that are concerned about what is being proposed here today. Can you give the committee any indication of the level of support that you have within your nation for proceeding in the manner that you are proposing?
Ms. Percival: We have a high level of support. We often do have opposition from small numbers with loud voices. We also have received more than just contact: We are under litigation, as is Canada, British Columbia and the British Columbia Treaty Commission, by this group.
The Chair: In your final decision making, you indicated in your presentation that most of your decisions are made by consensus, as opposed to voting. I may be wrong — maybe I have misinterpreted this — but if that is the way you operate, on this decision, would you go to a vote or would you continue on a consensual process?
Ms. Percival: We have operated on a consensus basis. That is our desire, but we are certainly open to all other options. A great deal of feedback and direction is given to us as a negotiating team throughout the process. As well, we have a small number of people who oppose it. Overall, we have direction and feedback given at all times, so we do not move forward without having a high degree of support in the movement that we do make.
Mr. Gibson: This is a dialogue that we have had and are having with Canada and British Columbia. We make the point, which I think is a correct one, that the essence of democracy is the consent of the governed. Standard elections in the rest of Canada are one way that we deal with that; we get a shot at who our representatives are one year out of every four years.
The Gitxsan approach, from my point of view as an outsider who has studied a large amount of constitutional theory and Canadian politics, is perhaps more democratic in yielding up the consent of the government because of the ongoing and difficult nature of gathering consensus. However, when that consensus is formed, it is a strong one. I wish to make that point.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I do not often comment on the presentations, but I would like to say that, for me personally, you represent a shining light in what is happening with negotiations right across the country.
Ms. Clifton Percival, has your decision-making process been through the various levels?
Ms. Percival: Yes. We are on a path that was laid out before most of us were born. It is a path that the chiefs have taken since contact. That is why we went to court. The determination is pre-1846. We are presenting who we are, our world view and our values. A continuous internal dialogue occurs throughout the process with much discussion, debate and opposition. All of those things are taken into account, but it must be the collective interests of the greater good because that is where our Aboriginal rights and title lie. As proper title holders, we would be remiss if we did not deal with those issues as they happen.
We are feeling the effects of colonization, the Indian Act and the fact that you have a handful of elected people who want to stop something because they might or might not benefit from it. What is wrong with the process today is that for more than five years we have faced the headlines with the suicides that are happening in our communities. That is a resounding example that the current system is failing us on a daily basis. It is difficult for us to face another weekend when we hear what happens in our communities; and for what our young people, who have no hope, are prepared to lose their lives. We want to see something change. This is an implementation of the Delgamuukw decision to be able to exercise our rights over the 33,000 square kilometres, not over the 70,000 square kilometres that exist on reserve lands in Gitxsan territory.
Senator Stewart Olsen: How could this committee assist with your major roadblocks with federal negotiations? Do you have a few examples?
Ms. Percival: The major roadblocks in the current treaty process are around mandates. British Columbia has created a non-tripartite, unsustainable model that benefits the Government of British Columbia but does not benefit First Nations. It will not bring people into the light and forward with advancement in economics and social well-being. The standard treaty model has those flaws. Perhaps Mr. Gibson wants to comment.
Mr. Gibson: That was related to Mr. Enemark's comment that suicides are a massive vote of no confidence in the existing application of the Indian Act in the Gitxsan territory.
Senator Brazeau: My question is along the same lines as the previous questions in terms of support from your members or citizens. What type of consultations have you had with as many as 13,000 citizens to base your support on moving forward with this? Obviously, this is one of the most progressive ideas and views that I have seen in recent memory. We frequently hear about people wanting to get out of the Indian Act and develop their own process because they are ready and willing to move forward. I would like to know what type of consultation processes are in your systems to inform your people of what you are trying to achieve?
Ms. Percival: Regular communiqués are sent out. We have used the B.C. and Beijing Olympic Games ads to talk about our piece, and we have had internal meetings. Mr. Derrick, Mr. Sebastian and I attend house or family meetings when invited. We have regular meetings with the heads of all houses. Any form of communication or question brought to us is dealt with on a regular basis. A great deal of discussion and debate occurs on the issues as we move forward. For example, on the short-term forestry agreement we had 17 meetings before we achieved a decision. We are far from achieving decisions on matters, and we take the time to have that important internal dialogue.
Senator Brazeau: Is the opposition that you face coming from the elected chiefs? Can you comment on the support or non-support from political organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations, AFN, and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, BCAFN, as well?
Ms. Percival: One of the main features that we have in terms of garnering support is the great amount of political networking that we have done. We have enjoyed the support of the BCAFN under former Regional Chief Shawn Atleo, now National Chief of the AFN, and the new BCAFN Regional Chief Jody Wilson-Raybould. We have enjoyed the support of the First Nations summit with the task group in British Columbia. We worked on the common table in British Columbia, which represented 50 per cent of the tables in treaty negotiations that are not in favour of the current treaty model. We have enjoyed a fair amount of support politically and have made our message free and known. We have everything published on our website so that people can download information about the process.
Senator Brazeau: My final question is on the negotiating mandates of the B.C. government and the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you said that you received movement from the Government of British Columbia but that it has taken longer for the Government of Canada to look into this and perhaps extend their mandate. Why is the Government of Canada being tardy compared to the provincial government on this issue?
Mr. Gibson: The Government of Canada is a larger beast and moves more slowly. As an example of the cooperation that we have had from British Columbia, we met with Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation George Abbott on September 8 for one hour. At that time, we asked him whether he could please take this approach and put it into the hands of a senior bureaucrat to move it along and understand it with a view to changing the mandate. Minister Abbott did not use these exact words but said that he would be that senior bureaucrat for the moment and wanted to see me on October 13 for four hours. He did so with his five top officials. By the end of the process, they had received all they needed to do their internal work to expand their mandate.
We hope that Minister Strahl and his people will afford us the same hearing. We are sure that they will do so. We have an appointment with them. We have every reason to believe that over the past year the public servants involved have come to gain an excellent appreciation of the position advanced by the Gitxsan. I will not put words in their mouths, but they seem to be sympathetic to it. However, they are powerless to talk in substantive terms until their restrictive negotiating mandate from the federal government is expanded in a sufficient way to deal with this different approach. It is not a question of opposition within the federal government but rather an inertia that must be overcome by political will.
Senator Hubley: This has been a good history lesson for me. I come from the East Coast, where we have not heard much about your nation. It has been interesting for me to follow.
I want to clarify an important date for the Gitxsan. Ms. Percival, you said that first contact was in the late 1800s. What do you mean by "first contact?"
Ms. Percival: That was the first time that we had non-Gitxsans on our territory.
Senator Hubley: The Indian Act was implemented in 1951.
Ms. Percival: Yes, that is when we had the first elected band councils in our communities.
Senator Hubley: You were part of the Indian Act at that time; is that correct?
Ms. Percival: Yes, that was when the Indian Act was imposed upon us.
Senator Hubley: The other question is probably a fairly simple one to do with seniority within the wilp that suggests that that person will become the leader of that house. How many families would you have?
You mentioned a population of 200 to 600 in each one. How many would there be; how many different houses or families would then form the larger council?
Ms. Percival: In the gim litxwid, which are the heads of the houses, we have 61 head chiefs. In a house, or wilp, you would have two to five bloodlines in that house, so two to five families exist within that house.
We are a ranking system. However, it is important to note that you are groomed for leadership from the time you are born, based on your rank. You would not automatically become a leader; as Mr. Derrick says, we do not suffer fools for leaders. It is an incredible responsibility that you take on. You are groomed for that position, and, if you are unable to fulfill that position, the house collectively and, indeed, the clan in that community makes the decision about leadership.
It is something that is openly debated. That happens when succession occurs, as well. For example, the name I hold was held by my grandmother. When I took the name, a series of meetings took place both internally in the house, amongst the families, and it also went out to the fireweed clan in Gitsegukla. Then it went further than that to the ganeda, or frogs, who witnessed these meetings to ensure that the decision was a good decision.
They do an open character analysis of you, talking about your shortcomings and your strengths, and determine whether you have the wherewithal to be a leader in your house.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much. I can only wish you well as you continue down this path.
Senator Raine: Thank you for being here. I would like to ask if one of you could share a little about the 33,000 square kilometres of traditional territory from the point of view of the non-Aboriginal people living there: the communities they live in and the interaction that you have between your community and their communities. What do you envision ongoing for governance for the non-Gitxsan people in the territory?
Ms. Percival: We have a pocketful of communities within those 33,000 square kilometres. I would estimate that perhaps about 5,000 non-Gitxsan live in the Gitxsan territories, though they primarily live in the communities of New Hazelton, South Hazelton, Old Hazelton, the Kispiox Valley, and the Kitwanga Valley. Those are small communities established within the territories, and we coexist.
Our intent in achieving reconciliation is to coexist, not to impact them negatively, and hopefully contribute to the economy, which we do not have. Our goal is to achieve an economy. We have a good working relationship with the mayor of Old Hazelton; we have begun discussions with New Hazelton. We will continue to work together collectively.
We have collective interests, one being the sustainability of the watersheds and protection of the salmon stocks. At times, we have moved together, but we will continue to coexist.
Senator Raine: At this time, with governance of the territory as a whole, do you have a regional district there?
Ms. Percival: Yes, we have the Kitimat-Stikine regional district in our territory.
Senator Raine: For the people in those communities in the regional district, there is a governance system in place regionally. Therefore, how do you see the new Gitxsan national governance, if you like, working; how do you see the transition?
If you put yourself in the shoes of other people in the area, how do we move forward with everyone being happy?
Ms. Percival: I think I need to clarify that there would be no Gitxsan governance. We would be part of the regional district and part of the municipality. We are interested in being part of the system rather than separate from it.
The only difference would be in negotiations in the exercising of the Delgamuukw rights, but that would be a Crown-to-Crown relationship between us, British Columbia and Canada, if we can achieve that.
We see ourselves moving into the regional district and local municipalities as regular voters, paying our taxes and obeying the law.
Senator Raine: You obviously have some communities, which I guess we call "reserves," that are pockets of the different houses together in what, from a non-Native perspective, would look like a community. We would have two different kinds. It could be complicated, but I am sure it could work.
Ms. Percival: We have invited the people from the provincial municipalities and are interested in going through the exercise of looking at how those communities would look — for example, the communities closest to New Hazelton — and how we would fit into the municipal model with our populations.
We would not create separate communities. Maybe we would be the "Greater Gitxsan Regional District"; who knows.
The Chair: For clarification, basically you would live in the communities that you are in and no different than Kispiox or whatever community is there. However, the Crown lands would then be part of the Gitxsan territory; is that correct? Also, the resources that are there would also be under that.
Ms. Percival: No, you would have to reverse that. We would be part of the Crown lands in those communities, and then we would exercise our rights on the remainder of the territory.
The Chair: What are you referring to when you say "the remainder of the territory"?
Ms. Percival: That is the 33,000 square kilometres. Currently, we have 70,000 kilometres of village space, so we are talking about putting ourselves into local government and being ordinary British Columbians and Canadians. We would retain our Gitxsan identity and that identity would exercise itself on the Delgamuukw rights of the entire territories.
The Chair: I am not sure that I am clear on that.
Mr. Gibson: Perhaps I could clarify further. The Gitxsan proposal calls for certain of the lands to be allocated to individual Gitxsan persons — just as other persons already have this — fee simple parcels for residential use.
In addition, it calls for a certain amount of territory, to be negotiated, to be Gitxsan collective territory, to be administered by the chiefs and the nations. The balance would be Crown land, administered by the Crown in the usual way, except as modified by the terms of our final agreement with them, which, for example, would include such things as a portion of the royalties available, opportunities for jobs and that sort of thing. The majority of the territory would be managed by the Crown in a regular way.
The Chair: How will you determine which land and where this land will come from that would become the territory over the collective territory?
Mr. Derrick: Mr. Chair, our starting point with the Delgamuukw decision is that we have title to the 33,000 square kilometres. We also recognize Crown title over that same piece of property. We have Delgamuukw rights over the 33,000 square kilometres.
Senator Raine: At the same time, if I am not mistaken, you recognize private title that exists, as well. Is that not threatened at all?
Mr. Derrick: We do recognize that. Right from the outset, when we started the court case in 1984, we recognized private property and also that we had given up rights to right-of-ways.
Senator Raine: As I understand, you wish property rights for Gitxsan people, as well.
Mr. Derrick: We have private property rights that we want to include within the legal framework.
Senator Patterson: I want to say how thrilled I am to hear your presentation, which was well done and very compelling for me. I come from a territory, Nunavut, which has taken quite a different approach. I remember well how the Inuit were condemned when they chose a path of public government for what is now Nunavut. They were condemned for having abandoned their Aboriginal rights, which they fought for to be recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, alongside other Aboriginal brothers and sisters.
They chose a model that gave them what you are looking for, I believe, which is significant authority over managing lands and resources in the entire settlement area. The Inuit only have 18 per cent of the land mass of Nunavut. It is not a small chunk of land; they are the biggest landholders in North America. However, it is only 18 per cent of the entire land mass and 8 per cent of the subsurface. They acquired significant authority over the management of their entire settlement area and a 5-per-cent share of royalties over developments anywhere on the settlement area.
I am not here to talk about the Inuit land claim, but I do want to say that I know that what you are doing takes some courage. The national chief of the Assembly of First Nations roundly condemned the Inuit for their proposal at that time, which was not helpful to them, I can assure you.
Of course, the Inuit have not been cursed with the legacy of treaties and reserves, very fortunately. However, I would like to think that elements of the Nunavut land claim settlement — and probably other recent modern treaties, such as in Labrador and other northern regions — will be an inspiration and support for the principles that we have heard you advocate this morning.
What you have developed is obviously deep-rooted and fundamental in your peoples. However, have you considered whether there are precedents or commonalities with some of the Inuit land claims settlements, which I seem to see from a limited understanding of your proposal?
Do you believe, as the Inuit certainly believe, that this approach that preserves your links to traditional lands and resources is also intended to support your culture and language? That, I am sure, is an element of your goals. It is written in your presentation, but I am wondering whether you feel that your cultural, traditional values and language can be better supported by your proposed model.
Mr. Derrick: The course that we are on has been the same one that my great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers stayed on from the time that we began to see other people coming into our territories.
The reconciliation process for us is very important because when you talk about reconciliation, if you have a continuum such as that, one party can move 95 per cent or 100 per cent and still reconcile. Sometimes when reconciliation takes place, you have 50 per cent movement from both parties.
We want to find our own fit within this country. We want to bring civilization to this country. We want to ensure that our great-grandchildren have the foundation that we stand upon right now.
You talked about language, history and culture. We went through a process whereby we appealed to the court of this country. The Supreme Court of this country accepted our pleadings, and they also acknowledged what we said when we went into court, which is that we are all here to stay.
Building blocks exist within the Constitution. We can operate within the legal framework. I have studied carefully what took place in other areas, and this country took a bold step and created Nunavut. We applaud Canada for doing that, and we applaud the leadership in Nunavut for the steps that they have taken.
We, as well, from Northwestern British Columbia, can build upon what we received out of the Supreme Court of Canada as Delgamuukw rights. We do not want to be a burden on the Crown, and we do not want the Crown to continue to be a burden on us. We want to be a free people in this country.
Whatever measures we take to create better public policy is what is important to us. We went public with our position a couple of years ago, when we put some ads into The Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun. We added some flavour to that public policy measure by buying ads on the CBC broadcast of the Beijing Olympic Games. We received considerable feedback from different parts of the country on that.
We will continue to take those measures to open up dialogue about our position. We want to build a better country. We want to engage all Gitxsan members in the debate. The chiefs do not have any coercive power that can be imposed on the total membership; we will have input from everyone when we decide on a final agreement with the Crown. Hopefully, the Crown has enough honour to stand with us in getting a proper mandate.
Senator Patterson: I do hope that our committee can be kept apprised of your progress as matters move forward. As some of my colleagues on the committee have said, this is unprecedented and exciting. For myself, I would hope that our committee can support your very laudable goals and your courageous initiative.
Senator Dyck: It has been heart-warming to hear from a community that has maintained its heritage in governance and other aspects of community life.
I am from Saskatchewan. My mother was a McNab from the Gordon First Nation. Much of what happens in Saskatchewan is through the treaty process. One of the stumbling blocks to economic development rests upon who holds the title to the resources above ground and below ground. I am curious to know the Gitxsan's position on ownership.
Do you want royalties from resource development? What would be the role of hereditary government in negotiating for the development of resources and the economic benefits to the community?
Ms. Percival: Our role as hereditary chiefs is in the decision-making process. The courts have told us that we have that right. We have an economic component and a right to a modest living, so we are not looking only at royalties. My grandmother and her grandmother held the view that royalties should be shared 50-50 with the Crown. That is our perception and position on revenue sharing. That is why we have done a great deal of work around minerals, forestry, water and fish.
In those policies we are trying to create the framework for decision making between us and the Crown, or our proponent, in how we move forward with the development of those resources. That is the fundamental key. Economic development will not happen in one small community; it must happen on a large scale. We are looking at the benefits from those resources from the house perspective and at legal mechanisms from the watershed perspective. I come from the watershed Gitsegukla. We created a legal trust that allows us to receive revenues. We created a decision-making mechanism that allows us to allocate those revenues collectively as houses and move it down to the individual level, if that is our decision. We are looking at our legal tools and a legal mechanism that will suit the purposes of the Crown, of the proponents and of the need to use the revenue generated on our territories.
Senator Dyck: Do both levels of government agree that the ownership of the resources is the Gitxsan and the Crown on a 50-50 basis?
Ms. Percival: That is the purpose of the negotiations so that we can hammer out agreements that are accountable and workable for all. The Province of British Columbia has the higher interest with resources because they are closest to the resources. We are enjoying their support in these discussions. As well, the B.C. government has been trying to grapple with the issue of resource revenue sharing for the last five years. They do not have it right yet, but we are willing to help them.
Senator Dyck: You were asked about the appearance of non-Gitxsan people in Gitxsan territory in the late 1800s. Were you referring to the Europeans and the British?
Ms. Percival: Yes. They were fur traders initially followed by the Indian agent later.
Senator Dyck: May I throw a wrinkle in that? In the late 1800s, many Chinese came over. A book written by Lily Chow talks about the Chinese involved in mining. We might be related because my father was an early Chinese immigrant. The Gitxsan might have relatives in Saskatchewan.
Ms. Percival: It is a small world. We can go anywhere and run into someone to whom we are related.
Senator Peterson: In the matter of education, do you have an Aboriginal curriculum for your youth, or are you part of the provincial structure?
Ms. Percival: We have a language program that spans kindergarten to grade 10. We do not have a substantive Aboriginal curriculum. At the provincial level, there is a broad-based First Nations studies course that has not been tailored to the individual nations on whose territory they are teaching. It is a continuous issue. We have targeted funds with the provincial government, but they are using them to meet basic service needs. It is an ongoing battle. We continue to have the lowest high-school completion rate in British Columbia. It is a huge issue that requires immediate attention.
The Chair: Education would be the same as it is for all non-Aboriginal people in British Columbia under the provincial system. Is that correct?
Ms. Percival: Yes. In some of our communities, we have independent schools, but they end at grade 7. The students then enter high school under the provincial system.
The Chair: How would you protect your cultural identity? Has there been any discussion about that?
Ms. Percival: One of the biggest struggles that we have is with language and language retention. Research shows that language teaching in a school setting is perhaps one way of achieving success. It is more important for us to have a community-driven process for language. We have a language authority that has been in existence for five years.
On the treaty table, we tried to negotiate a language and culture chapter that was substantively different from what they consider culture and language, which is a cultural heritage chapter. We were trying to drive home the necessity of having both language in the schools and language nests in the community to increase our retention and the number of fluent speakers. At the current rates, we will be devastated within the next 20 years with a lack of fluent speakers of the language. It must be a multipronged approach and cannot rest simply in the hands of the education system. We must have community initiatives.
We have an agreement with the University of Northern British Columbia on a language-teacher program that is specific to the Gitxsan language. We have graduated 10 people from the program. We need different avenues to protect the language. The culture is alive and well, but we need fluent speakers so that we can further enhance our strengths.
The Chair: I would like to thank the presenters for being here this morning. It has been enlightening. I have had the privilege of being in the Gitxsan territory. I have met with Mr. Derrick, Ms. Percival and Mr. Sebastian in the past. I am encouraged by what we see and hear. This is a courageous initiative, as Senator Patterson pointed out.
The committee will discuss in camera any ideas in support of this worthwhile initiative. Tremendous social problems exist in the area. The issues surrounding the complexities of youth and the suicide rate in the area must be addressed immediately.
Mr. Derrick, do you have a closing comment, sir?
Mr. Derrick: Yes. We would like to thank the Senate committee for allowing us to come and speak with you. Our efforts to deal with public policy are sincere. We would like to invite the Senate committee to come and meet with us in our territory, where you can listen to perspectives from all the different groups that we have in our community.
There is a genuine effort by all of us to improve the social and economic conditions of our peoples. I go back to the comments that I read earlier from Justice McEachern. We have explored all of the legal avenues. We could hold the Crown to certain tests going through the court process, but we do not want to go down that road again. It is all too easy to sue people and bring about decisions that do not benefit either party. We want to make a genuine effort to build a better country, not only for ourselves but also for other Canadians and Aboriginals. Thank you again. If you want to travel to British Columbia, the Gitxsan territory is the best place on Earth, and you are welcome there.
The Chair: Yes, it is a pretty nice spot. Thank you.
(The committee continued in camera.)