Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 7 - Evidence - June 10, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 10, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 9:35 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. 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 here in the room or via CPAC or the Web.
I am Dennis Patterson from Nunavut. Our mandate in this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This morning we will begin testimony on a specific order of reference authorizing us to examine and report on Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
We have three witnesses today: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Department of Justice and the Sliammon First Nation.
The nation is located just northwest of the city of Powell River, B.C., and they entered into the B.C. treaty process in 1994. The Tla'amin Final Agreement between the Sliammon First Nation, B.C. and Canada was signed in March and April of 2014.
Before proceeding to the testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to please introduce themselves.
Senator Moore: Wilfred Moore from Nova Scotia.
Senator Dyck: Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan. Good morning.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith from Ontario.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from northwestern Ontario.
Senator Raine: Senator Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
The Chair: Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses. From the Sliammon First Nation, we have Chief Clint Williams and Roy Francis, Chief Negotiator. With these gentlemen at the table are Tom Molloy, Chief Federal Negotiator, from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; and from the Department of Justice Canada, Gloria Chao, Legal Counsel, Treaties and Aboriginal Government-Negotiations West and Specific Claims, Legal Services Unit.
We look forward to your presentations, witnesses, which will be followed by questions from senators. Chief Williams, would you like to begin, please?
Clint Williams, Chief, Sliammon First Nation: First, thank you all for having us up this way. It is an honour and a pleasure to be here representing the Tla'amin Nation at this stage of implementing our treaty. This process has not been without its challenges. I am sure you have probably seen many of the stories in the media. However, throughout this process, we have adopted a bit of a motto. We have the goal of one heart, one mind and one nation. We want to work toward improving the lives and opportunities for the Tla'amin people.
With that in mind, it is a big responsibility being here, in Ottawa, in front of this distinguished panel. Also, heavy in the back of our minds and our hearts are our people back home in Sliammon. Roy and I have quite a responsibility here. We definitely want to improve the scenario, the situation and the future for the Tla'amin people.
The Powell River area is in some challenging economic times. Powell River was a pulp and paper town, and the mill is constantly downsizing with modernization of everything. A little less paper is needed; there is no sawmill there. However, that was not the challenge for our Sliammon people. Not a lot of people were employed at that mill when it was in its heyday. Our people worked to the north. We had about one sentence in one of the old Powell River official community plans that said, "Sliammon are some Indians up the coast to the north of us." That was not exactly the best relationship at that time, but since that time — I think that was probably in the 1980s and early 1990s — things have changed a lot. We have a great relationship now with the City of Powell River. We have a community accord and a couple of agreements with the City of Powell River. It is all about working together and developing things for the region.
We also have two other levels of government. We have the Powell River Regional District, which looks after the outlying areas; and the City of Powell River. We are working on relationships with both of them. I think they are very good and productive relationships. We now meet regularly — quarterly, I believe it is — and we discuss things such as developments and also combining resources in the event of an emergency.
With that, I want to point out that things are progressing and are on a positive swing for the Sliammon First Nation. I am proud to be here and proud to be representing our home community in this event.
The Chair: That is excellent. Thank you very much, Chief Williams.
I will now call on Tom Molloy, who is well-known to us in Nunavut for his work in as chief federal negotiator in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Welcome, Mr. Molloy.
Tom Molloy, Chief Federal Negotiator, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to meet with the committee, and I thank the honourable senators for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement, representing Canada's ratification of this final agreement.
The agreement to which this bill refers has already been approved by the other parties in a free, open and transparent vote by the members of the Tla'amin Nation themselves and, subsequently, by the Province of British Columbia. Passage of this bill, followed by the coming into force of this and B.C.'s earlier passed legislation, will bring the agreement into effect as a modern treaty under the Constitution Act, 1982.
If I may, I would like to provide the committee with a brief overview of the agreement, after which I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have. I would note at the outset that the provisions of the Tla'amin Final Agreement are consistent with the comprehensive claims policy and the inherent right of self-government. The agreement is similar in language and scope to agreements recently concluded with Tsawwassen, Maa-nulth and Yale First Nations. Its conclusion marks another success in the British Columbia treaty process and, like the preceding final agreements, is the product of extensive negotiation.
The Tla'amin Nation was among the very first groups to submit a statement of intent to negotiate under the British Columbia treaty process and was accepted for negotiations in May 1994. These negotiations led to an agreement in principle in 2003, with a final agreement initialed by the parties in 2011.
While it bears many similarities to earlier agreements I just mentioned, each agreement is unique, reflecting the situation and circumstances of each First Nation.
In the case of the present agreement, the most significant variation relates to some of the fisheries provisions. Unlike the previous agreements, the Tla'amin Final Agreement does not include a harvest agreement for commercial fishing purposes. Tla'amin Nation fishers will acquire commercial licences and participate in the commercial fishery under the same terms and conditions that apply to the general commercial fishery. This will not impact the Tla'amin Nation's right to harvest fish and aquatic plants for domestic purposes, that is, for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
The Tla'amin Nation will exercise this right within defined geographic areas, subject to conservation, public health and public safety considerations. The geographical areas will be known as the Tla'amin Fishing Area and the Tla'amin Herring Fishing Area, and will be non-exclusive; that is, these areas will remain open to recreational, commercial and other First Nation fishers.
Allocations for the harvests of individual species for domestic purposes are described in the final agreement, including a provision for determining allocations based on annual abundance in order to conserve and sustain the resources.
While the lack of a commercial harvest agreement is unique, the similarities in what the agreement will achieve are the most important. First and foremost, the Tla'amin Final Agreement represents another step forward in the process of reconciliation. It will be welcomed by many Aboriginal people as a positive sign of Canada's commitment to resolve issues of Aboriginal rights and title.
The Tla'amin Nation will have its own government, democratically elected and accountable according to the provisions of the Tla'amin Nation Constitution, which was ratified by its members in 2009. It will make its own decisions and set its own priorities.
After a transition period, the only application of the Indian Act that will remain will be the determination of Indian status for members of the Tla'amin Nation. This ensures that they will continue to have access to a range of programs and services offered by federal agencies and provincial governments.
Beyond that, the Tla'amin Nation will make and enforce its own laws. These must, of course, be consistent with the Canadian constitutional framework and in accordance with the terms of the final agreement. Public order and safety, family and social services, health services, housing, education — all of these will be managed by the Tla'amin Nation.
The Tla'amin government will have a full range of authority to manage its economy, to register, licence and regulate businesses on its lands, and to identify and pursue opportunities to grow the economic and social well-being of its members on its own terms. It will have the authority to enter into cooperative ventures with other governments, including First Nations, as well as private sector business and industry.
In this regard, I would note that nearly two thirds of the 1,000 members of the Tla'amin Nation live on a reserve near the city of Powell River, a city with which Tla'amin Nation has forged an excellent relationship over the past decade, as the chief pointed out earlier. Both the city and the Powell River Regional District board of directors are strong supporters of this agreement.
The current mayor of Powell River, Dave Formosa, has highlighted the tremendous opportunities that the final agreement will provide to the people of both Tla'amin and the Powell River region. He writes that the final agreement will:
. . . position Sliammon as a significant economic driver within our Powell River community. The funding, lands and resources realized from treaty . . . will benefit the Sliammon people and positively impact the Powell River community.
It is not surprising, then, that in anticipation of the coming into force of the final agreement, the Tla'amin Nation and the City of Powell River are already discussing opportunities for economic cooperation. The clarity and certainty this agreement will achieve in areas such as land ownership, the resources provided by this agreement and the agreement's self-government arrangements are already facilitating this sort of cooperative action.
With the final agreement in place, the Tla'amin Nation will manage and develop its resources as it sees fit, including natural resource development on its lands. Its resources will include approximately 8,300 hectares of land that the Tla'amin Nation will own in fee simple. It is notable that a significant portion of that land is waterfront — contiguous, accessible waterfront property that offers significant potential economic activity.
The community already operates a hotel and marina complex, and the reserve near Powell River includes residential developments that contain over 140 leasehold properties held by non-members.
The Tla'amin Nation — 60 per cent of which is under 40 — is also active in fishing, aquaculture and forestry. With this final agreement in place, the Tla'amin Nation's youth and growing population will be able to pursue new opportunities in these and other endeavours with the help of an economic development fund that is included in the agreement.
In conclusion, honourable senators, I would emphasize that, as important as this agreement is to Canada, British Columbia and the Tla'amin Nation, this bill is about more than ratifying an agreement. It's about keeping a commitment — Canada's commitment to accelerate progress on land claims, to reconcile relationships and to realize the benefits of productive negotiations.
Negotiating land claim and self-government agreements in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation is key to achieving reconciliation and rebuilding relationships with Aboriginal people in Canada.
The signing of the Tla'amin Final Agreement shows that Canada is serious about moving forward with willing partners to achieve results at the negotiating tables for the benefit of all Canadians — results that balance the rights of all concerned while unlocking economic opportunities that promote stronger and healthier Aboriginal communities.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to this important bill and look forward to any questions honourable senators may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Molloy. I believe Ms. Chao is available if there are technical questions involving the law.
Maybe I will begin before deferring to the deputy chair. As background for the committee, we note that the legislature of British Columbia ratified the final agreement by law on March 14, 2013, and on April 28, 2014, the bill was passed by unanimous consent by the House of Commons without referral to a committee. Our committee will be the only committee reviewing this bill in Parliament.
Chief Williams, I know a vote was held in 2012 to ratify the treaty, and it had a 90 per cent voter turnout with 57.5 per cent voting in favour of the treaty. Can you tell us about the support for this treaty amongst your members? Do you have a mandate to recommend that we go ahead and take the last step, following your community's vote and the B.C. legislature's vote, to approve this bill to become law in the Parliament of Canada?
Mr. Williams: Yes. It was quite the summer when the referendum was held on the final agreement.
One of the tough processes that the style of referendum posed on the Sliammon First Nation, given that you have under 1,000 people voting, was the ones who did not show up to vote were counted as "no" votes. Some 60 to 70 people did not show up to vote. That was quite challenging. It was quite a heated time in the community.
Even if we said 50 per cent of that 60 to 70 people, if 50 per cent voted yes and 50 per cent voted no, that would have bumped that percentage up quite a bit. Things were so heated in the community that some people just didn't want to be involved and were willing to live with what happened.
Overall, the sense of it is I think there is support for this. Our community wanted to vote on this. One of the things that I think show there is support is I was trying to be a fence-sitter on this, trying to talk to both sides, both camps, I guess, the yes and the no. That didn't last too long. I was forced to give my opinion, and I did so. Of course, my opinion was to support the treaty, because I could see the good that can happen for our community.
The reason I am talking about this is because that happened in July. We then had an election that followed that July, in September. I was elected back in, so I guess the people may have liked the work that was done. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to take credit for it. We have a lot of great Sliammon people who worked on this agreement. That's a gauge that I would use. I hope that answers your question.
The Chair: That is very helpful.
If I may ask one more question, I was pleased to hear you're getting some choice waterfront property as part of this treaty, but I would like to ask about the cash compensation component. I understand there is an amount of a capital transfer of $31.1 million, but the negotiation loans will have to be repaid once the agreement comes into effect.
Could either you or Mr. Molloy, whoever is willing, describe how this will work? What will be deducted and what will be the payment schedule, please, or is it Ms. Chao? Could we have some information about that before I turn to Senator Dyck, please?
Gloria Chao, Legal Counsel, Treaties and Aboriginal Government-Negotiations West and Specific Claims, Legal Services Unit, Department of Justice Canada: As you pointed out, there is the capital transfer of $31.1 million.
I'd like to take you through a few other numbers, if I may. There is an economic development fund of $7.3 million and a fishing vessel fund of $0.3 million. The funds are indexed to inflation.
The Chair: That was $0.3 million?
Ms. Chao: Yes, $0.3 million; that's right.
These funds are indexed to inflation and will be paid to the Tla'amin Nation on the effective date. That is a date that will be set upon agreement of the three parties: Tla'amin Nation, Canada and British Columbia. That is currently targeted for April 1, 2016.
The capital transfer and negotiation loan repayment chapter includes Schedule 1, and that sets out some of the details of how the negotiation loan repayment will unfold.
If the Tla'amin Nation has not repaid all outstanding negotiation loans owed to Canada by the effective date — again, that's approximately two years from now — those loans will be deducted from the capital transfer as per the provisions of that capital transfer and negotiation loan repayment chapter.
The Chair: Can you give us the number?
Ms. Chao: If I could just refer to that chapter, the capital transfer and negotiation loan repayment chapter is actually Chapter 18 of the final agreement. I made reference to Schedule 1, which is the capital transfer payment plan schedule. The negotiation loan repayment plan is actually found at Schedule 2. The table sets out the amounts that will be repaid from the effective date — again, those are targeted for 2016 — until the ninth anniversary of the effective date.
In that table, the amount every year for that nine-year period will be $1,167,829. That's the same amount set out in that chapter every year for those nine years.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for appearing this morning. It must be a very exciting day for all of you sitting on the panel. It's nice that we are dealing with something very positive, and it has been a long time in the making, so congratulations for the work you've done to get to this point this time.
The first question I have is related to the B.C. treaty process. You were saying it has taken about 20 years of negotiations to reach this point. This probably is more directed to Chief Williams and Mr. Francis, but is there anything from your perspective that could have sped the process up so that it didn't take the length of time that it did? Were there stumbling blocks you could identify that might have made the length of time significantly shorter?
Mr. Williams: I'll take the first stab at it. One of the things we have seen in the process, when Premier Gordon Campbell was still premier, was that he announced the new relationship with First Nations. I personally thought that was going to be the tool that would open the doors and really move things along for the progress of First Nations. It didn't develop as well as it was mentioned. If the new relationship was followed through on, I think that would have helped the whole B.C. treaty process.
Roy Francis, Chief Negotiator, Sliammon First Nation: That's a very good question. Sliammon has learned to collaborate, to work with some of the other treaty tables involved in the process, and we learned a lot from those tables in front of us. The Tsawwassen First Nation has a completed treaty, the Maa-nulth First Nations, and the Nisga'a. Over the years we developed good working relationships with each of those leading communities, and one of the things that Sliammon came out of that collaboration with is the idea of building a community, building a nation to do that. It takes time.
We've learned that to press, to set tight time frames is not a good recipe for success. So we've learned that we need to find the time, make the time, to work with our community members and introduce concepts, ideas that are new to all of us, the idea of owning land, building your own laws, planning your financial future, embracing responsibility for our own future. Those are new places to go. That's something you can't fit into a small box that moves very quickly. You have to take the time to build the confidence in the community, and for us it took 18 years to do that. It seems like a long time, but those 18 years went by really quickly.
Senator Dyck: As follow-up to that, a very interesting concept that you've brought forward is convincing the community members who are used to a certain way of being, and now you're transforming that to something very different. At the same time, your community members are made up of a lot of young people, which over 18 years has probably increased to a large extent. Do you see a greater willingness on the part of your young people to move forward as opposed to some of the people that are over 50?
Mr. Francis: I can answer that again. I would say our younger generation was probably the biggest strength we had in getting approval of our treaty in our community.
Sliammon is blessed with a really amazing talent pool. We have doctors, lawyers, accountants, business degree masters, and those are the young leaders in our community. They're the ones that I think helped carry that load in working with our community, generating the message that we're ready for this, we're ready for change, we need change, we want change. We have outgrown the old ways, and it's our young people that helped build that message and carry it with us.
Senator Dyck: As a follow-up, it sounds like you were saying you have a high degree of highly educated youth as well, so my next question would be generally with regard to the educational success of your youth. How will that carry forward under this new agreement? What sort of provisions are there in the agreement with regard to education for youth, either in elementary, secondary or post-secondary?
Mr. Francis: There is the idea of programs and services that are normally provided for financially from Aboriginal Affairs, and those programs and services continue. They are enhanced with our treaty. We managed to secure an enhanced level of funding, so that's one way of supporting our education needs. The treaty provides the ability to generate revenues from other sources. We don't have to rely on those federal funding streams entirely. I think we heard somebody mention that we have resource revenue sharing in our treaty. We have an economic development fund. Sliammon is a very progressive business-focused community. We're generating revenues that we fully intend to use to support education needs beyond what is provided for in those funding agreements.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to add one thing to Roy's comments. The one challenge we're having is that a lot of our educated and professional people go away; they go to school, and a lot of times they don't come back home. One thing we're going to have to look at — and we're looking at this with the development of our governance work we're currently doing — is ways to entice our professional people to come home. That is going to be one of the challenges. We have these great people, but we need to attract them to come back home.
The Chair: I want to follow up with Mr. Francis. You said you had achieved an enhanced level of education funding, if I understand it right, in conjunction with the treaty negotiations but not part of the treaty. Is that right? This was just some sort of a side benefit that occurred while you were negotiating the treaty?
Mr. Francis: No, I may not have explained it well. In the treaty there is a piece of the negotiation connected to an FFA, the fiscal financing arrangement. That FFA covers a range of services in the nation, including education, and that's what I was referring to. The FFA before treaty, I believe, was about $5.1 million per year, and with the completed treaty it moves to $8.2 million. The overall funding in the FFA area has increased in a good way for Sliammon.
The Chair: That's very helpful. Thank you.
Senator Meredith: Thank you so much, Chief Williams, Mr. Francis and Mr. Molloy for your presentations this morning. I'm going back to my colleague's earlier question. Senator Dyck raised the question with respect to how you arrived here. Twenty years is a long time.
Two years ago to this date, we tabled a report with respect to the B.C. treaty agreement. We highlighted the bureaucratic hurdles that prevented First Nations from getting access to their lands quickly.
Chief Williams, I know you talked about and Mr. Francis alluded to the new way of life for your people, with them coming into their self-governance, having their own lands and so forth. However, just to be completely clear here, this process took 20 years. That's a young person's life. With respect to issues that may have impacted them and the cost of that, what were some of those challenges that prevented you from moving quickly?
Mr. Molloy, I'm going to ask you that same question as well, with respect to the bureaucracy within the department. I'm going to be absolutely blunt about this: We have seen situations here time and time again where treaties are being negotiated, it's a protracted period of time, and it costs money.
Mr. Williams, answer that first and then Mr. Molloy. Talk about what steps have been taken to ensure there's an expeditious process here. Then I'll ask about the cost of this over the 20 years.
Mr. Williams: Definitely, that has been the sore spot and the very tough bone of contention in our community: Aboriginal rights and title, and people look at our traditional territory and that we own the whole traditional territory. That is the biggest, strongest point that our anti-treaty people use when they discuss things with us.
Borrowing money to be in this process is definitely a very sore point, when our people view our traditional territory as 100 per cent owned by Sliammon First Nation. I agree with that, but the one thing I have issues with and what pushed me in the direction of supporting the treaty was watching all that land being tenured away.
We have Tree Farm Licence 39 - Block 1, which sits in the heart of our Tla'amin traditional territory. That one TFL takes up one third of the entire land base of the Tla'amin traditional territory; that one tree farm licence is 20,000 hectares. That's approximate; it might even be more. That's a bit of a bone of contention.
I'm only using that as an example. Where I was going with this is that what pushed me to support the treaty were land transactions such as that. We have mines in the territory. We have no resource revenue sharing. They have been there for approximately 100 years. We have the Powell River mill that has been —
Senator Meredith: I will interrupt. The province was actually tendering these out?
Mr. Williams: Yes. The pulp and paper mill that I mentioned earlier has been there for 100 years; I think they celebrated their 100 years two or three years ago.
They invited us to the ceremony. Attending that ceremony was a bit of a bitter pill to swallow, and I wasn't sure I wanted to attend. There is an extra point that makes it a little tougher to attend the 100-year celebration, which is that the original village site of the Tla'amin people, the Tisquat village, which sat where the Powell River mill is. We lived on the river; we had a beautiful spot. They dammed the river, killed the fish supply and had a mill there for 100 years. Then they invited us there to celebrate it.
It was pretty tough to accept that, and we get zero revenue sharing or anything from the mill or from the forest company that now owns the TFL 39. If anything, it has been very challenging, because we have a forest company, and the largest forest tenure holder in the area controls all the resources. So part of the forest industry is logging the trees up in the back 40 and then getting them down into the water to get them to the market. All of the infrastructure between the trees and the water is owned and controlled by companies that have been awarded these various licences and whatnot from the province.
So I was looking at all these resources being —
Senator Meredith: Disappearing.
Mr. Williams: Yes, being tenured out and everything. What is going to be left for us if we don't do something? What really pushed me in the direction of supporting the treaty was watching these resources fly out the door, and there wasn't an awful lot that we could do.
Senator Meredith: Your comments, Mr. Molloy?
Mr. Molloy: There are a number of factors that cause treaty negotiations to take a long time, in some people's eyes. To me, I'm personally not surprised. I've been involved in a number of treaties that have been negotiated. I was involved in the Nunavut agreement, the Nisga'a, and I've been involved in others.
One of the key things that a treaty does is to fundamentally change the relationship between the First Nations, Inuit, provincial governments, territorial governments and the federal government. They're complicated, because societies that operated in particular ways now have to be changed to try and accommodate the new relationship. That in itself takes time. Building up the trust between the negotiators is also something that's critical — and developing the trust not only with the negotiators but also developing a trust of the government that we represent, the provincial government, or the First Nation or Inuit government. That takes time.
Then, there are also changes in governments, whether it's the First Nations, the federal or the provincial. There are mandate issues in that three parties have to get mandates that can somehow or other work together, and that takes time. Policy reviews occur.
There are a number of factors at play in terms of these negotiations.
Senator Meredith: Since our report and our observations were made, has the department taken any measures to say, "We know there will be changes in First Nations governance. We know there will be elections and so forth"? To streamline things, what steps is the department taking to ensure that some of these treaties go a lot quicker to come to some conclusion? To your knowledge, has anything been done since we tabled our report?
Mr. Molloy: Some activities have taken place, but I don't feel I should be the one speaking on behalf of the department with respect to those matters.
Senator Meredith: In terms of general knowledge, sir. I don't want you to speak directly on behalf of the department, but in terms of general knowledge, what are some of the areas you know of to expedite the process?
Mr. Molloy: There are a number of reviews that are in process and other things put in place to try and accommodate the speed of the negotiations.
Senator Meredith: That's quite encouraging. Thank you.
Mr. Francis, we talk about the —
The Chair: May I put on you second round, Senator Meredith?
Senator Meredith: It's just a follow-up on the youth.
The Chair: Make it quick, please.
Senator Meredith: Regarding the initiatives to attract, Chief Williams, you mentioned ensuring those opportunities. Mr. Molloy you spoke about it as well.
Mr. Francis, can you elaborate a little bit more on the youth initiatives that are going on within your First Nations, or how the youth will be incorporated in these economic opportunities?
Mr. Francis: One of the most recent developments is the formation of a youth council. We put out invitations for youth interested in participating in the planning for our future. We had a handful step forward. They participate in information sessions with us. They help identify priorities that are important to them. We are able to talk frankly about employment, career opportunities and career needs that we have for our nation.
I'm learning that our youth are a lot more resourceful and imaginative than we give them credit for. Our biggest population base is our youth, and our future is looking very bright.
Senator Meredith: Thank you. I congratulate you for coming to this stage.
I'll go on second round, chair, if I may.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Congratulations. What percentage of women are working in your community, Chief Williams?
Mr. Williams: The percentage of women?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Approximately.
Mr. Williams: I would say it's probably about an even split.
Mr. Francis: I think there are more women than men.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Good for them. I asked this question because in your agreement you said the rights of women are going to be protected under section 35 and whatnot.
The thing is, it doesn't always happen on a First Nation, as you know, because of the relationships with the chief and council, with the women, and sometimes spousal breakup. What is the guarantee that these women will be protected?
Mr. Williams: One thing that I notice is women are always quite well represented. Currently on our council we have two women. Yes, I think women are really well represented in just about any function that we have. I don't think that's really written anywhere. I think it's kind of the community putting that in place.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: In my experience, I found if there's a marriage breakdown the women are always being picked on or kicked out of their homes. I'm saying that if they're not working or on social assistance, they can't afford a lawyer. Is there some kind of guarantee that the administration will protect these women?
Mr. Williams: Over the past few years we've been working on a matrimonial law. It's not in effect now. We put a fair bit of work into this matrimonial law but, with the potential effective date of the treaty coming in 2016, we stopped. We will introduce that as part of the treaty.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Thank you.
Senator Dyck: Just a quick supplementary. You said you had two women on your council. How many members are on your council?
Mr. Williams: We have a total of nine.
Senator Dyck: Two out of nine. Okay.
Senator Tannas: Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Francis, for your thoughtful response to Senator Dyck's question. That's something that I think — and Senator Meredith also spoke of it — the length of time and respecting that this is a historic decision that's been made and negotiation and does deserve the time. Thank you. It was helpful.
I just wanted to get a quick clarification from Ms. Chao and then ask Chief Williams. You mentioned $1.1 million and nine years as the loan, so that's $10 million is what's outstanding right now, so we're talking about net $21 million in the capital transfer that would happen, assuming nothing gets repaid before the big chunk of money comes in, and even if it does, that money has to come from somewhere.
The Chair: My math is a bit different.
Senator Tannas: There's $1.1 million for nine years?
The Chair: There are $31.1 million of capital transfer, $7.3 million of economic development, and there's a $0.3 million. That adds up to — $38 million, minus $10 million — roughly $28 million.
Senator Tannas: That's right. I'm just focusing on the capital transfer.
At the end of the day, because I presume the economic fund will be just that, a fund that will be set aside, you can't use it to build a road; you have to use that for specifics. Am I right that it's $10 million that will be deducted?
Ms. Chao: Yes. As per the Schedule 2 amounts, that's about right. I should point out that the amounts that I had quoted to you are provisional loan repayments based on the total outstanding loans and interest accrued to March 31, 2010. Those were the numbers set out when this final agreement was finalized for the approval of the internal Tla'amin Nation ratification purposes.
The final negotiation loan repayment amounts, including any further loans made and interest accrued after March 31, 2010 — so there are about four years of those amounts — will be calculated and included in the final negotiation loan repayment plan. It will be in accordance with the methodology set out in that chapter, and in particular with that schedule too.
To clarify — thank you, senator, for that question — those amounts are as of the 2010 date and is what is in the final agreement that was ratified and signed by the three parties.
Senator Tannas: Let me dig a little deeper.
Chief Williams, what will be the net effect? Are there more loans on top of the 10 that have been issued over the last four years, roughly? Really, what I'm driving at here is that you're going to get a chunk of money that is the capital transfer. How is your infrastructure? Is it in good shape or are you behind the eight ball going into this? Will you need to invest a significant amount of that money immediately just to bring infrastructure up, or do you feel you're in good shape?
Mr. Williams: Our infrastructure is definitely challenged. Our drinking water is at its maximum capacity. We have a sewage treatment plant that is also at its maximum capacity. We have, I think, one serviced lot available for somebody to build on on our Sliammon Indian Reserve No. 1 at this time.
Is there a need for homes? Absolutely. Is there a need for a whole new subdivision? Definitely. Do some of the old homes need to be ripped down? Yes, 100 per cent.
A military base in Ladner, B.C., sent a number of homes over, and our people are still living in them. Some of the challenges are that they're not sitting on foundations; they're sitting on these bricks. With that, we live on the West Coast, and I think our humidity is probably about the same as here, so that brings challenges with black mould and everything like that. We definitely have challenges that way.
One of the things that we've been told at the negotiating table is that as long as the project is on the books before the effective date — the project identified such as water or sewer — we could still work with the department.
Senator Tannas: They'll finish all those capital projects that are on the books prior, out of their own funds, and your net $21 million would stay intact for future use?
Thank you.
The Chair: That's helpful. Thank you, Senator Tannas.
Senator Meredith: Just a quick supplementary question for Chief Williams.
You talked about the housing situation. How many families, of your 1,040 members, live in one dwelling at this time in your nation? You talked about the deficiencies in the homes and the lack of homes. In terms of doing another study here, we want to find out how that impacts your community.
Mr. Williams: At this time, our unemployment rate is very high. Some people are really challenged economically. There isn't an awful lot of work around the Powell River area. The people who are employed have pretty decent housing. The people who are unemployed are having challenges.
Some families are overcrowded in some houses. The number you mentioned for our people, I think, for the total homes that we have on IR No. 1 is about 220 homes. Roughly between 600 and 700 of our Sliammon people live in Sliammon on IR No. 1. The other 300 or 400 are kind of scattered in the Vancouver area, on Vancouver Island. They are out job hunting and doing what they do, away from the community. Is there a want to come home? Absolutely. People look at the lands that are coming as a result of the treaty, and a lot of people want to move back home.
Senator Meredith: Thank you, Chief Williams.
The Chair: We have our senator from B.C., Senator Raine.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. It is a pleasure to have you with us here today and to see this long process come to a conclusion. I congratulate you on reaching an agreement with both the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada and having it supported by your people.
You live in one of the most beautiful places in Canada. Can you give us a vision of what you see for your future in terms of taking advantage of where you are and what the opportunities are? Will you be expanding in tourism, for instance, sports fishing, aquaculture or forestry? What is your vision for the future?
Mr. Williams: As you mentioned, we do live in God's country. It is beautiful. I think everyone probably knows of Desolation Sound. It is the most beautiful boating waters that you can be in.
This is a new position for Sliammon. We have always been resource rich and cash poor, so it is a new challenge for us. As Mr. Molloy mentioned, we do have a partnership on the Lund Hotel, which is basically the gateway to Desolation Sound. We have some things that have started.
As I mentioned earlier, the economic climate in Powell River is a little challenging, so I think we need to cater more to tourist types. That is it not to say that there isn't a market; there is a market for some of the local Powell River people to use the Lund Hotel. The strong message from our youth has been that they want to share our culture and they want to share the culture with tourism-type ventures, ecotourism type of things. We definitely will cater to that. I think that the Lund Hotel will be key to that. Some of the waterfront land will definitely be great for whatever ventures we may develop.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much and good luck.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Senator Beyak: Thank you, gentlemen, for your positive and uplifting presentation. I wish you all the best as well.
We face the same challenges in our non-Aboriginal small communities with our youth wanting to leave because of the work situation and the economics. In our committee, we hear a lot of sad stories, so it was nice today for me and, I am sure, the viewers at home to hear about the positive and happy outlook that you have.
Are any other First Nations asserting territorial claims over your treaty, and if so, have you resolved them?
Mr. Williams: We are calling those overlap, shared territory-type agreements.
To the south of us, we have the Sechelt First Nation, and we have a shared territory agreement with them. They cross into our territory, only a small percentage, across the Salish Sea. There is the K'ómoks First Nation. We have an agreement with them as well. Then there are the Homalco and the Klahoose First Nations. Sliammon, Homalco and Klahoose were one people at one time, and then they parted ways. We have a shared territory agreement with the Homalco, and I cannot remember exactly the title, but it is the same concept that we have with the Klahoose. That is what we are surrounded by.
Senator Beyak: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Chief Williams.
Senator Moore: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I will congratulate you, too, but I don't want to do it prematurely. I have a number of questions here relating to lands and also to the funding.
First, when was the agreement signed? I am confused here. Was it in March, or was there a specific date in April of 2014?
Mr. Molloy: There is a specific date in April. I just don't recall it offhand; I am sorry. We can provide you with that information.
Senator Moore: The traditional territory was 1.5 million acres; the reserve lands, a total of six reserves, are 4,700 acres, and the agreed-to lands under the agreement are 20,566 acres.
I can see where that would have been a point of contention, Chief Williams. How was the final acreage agreed to? How did you arrive at that sum?
Mr. Williams: That predated me.
Mr. Francis: It was a really big fight.
Senator Moore: I bet.
Mr. Francis: It was a very difficult explanation amongst our Sliammon members. We started out trying to explain what we have before treaty. Before treaty, we start about 1,907 hectares; I think of it in terms of hectares as opposed to acres. With the completed treaty, that changes to become 8,300 hectares.
The first response from our community was an absolute resistance to that notion. The idea was why would we entertain that number or any other number in our community. We had to work hard to get the consideration from our community. We talked about the land base that we had before treaty being land that we don't have clear title to. It is land that exists as reserve status. There are restrictions that come along with reserve status and impediments to development that come along with reserve status. We started comparing what we would have with or without. The land base increases by about four times.
Then we entertained the question of how we would use the land that is captured in a treaty. We will own it in fee simple; we will have clear title to it; and we will be the governing authority over it. It will be a tax base that we have the tax authority over. That is a much different position than we were in before treaty.
We then addressed the question of the broader land base beyond that to which we have title. We asked our community to consider what uses we see for that broader land base. We are a First Nation the same as others. We use the territory for hunting, fishing and gathering. We exercise rights over that territory. We don't necessarily need to own it to be able to exercise those rights on it. That was a really hard approach to establish in our community, but, over time, we generated enough dialogue that there was a good grasp of we don't have to own the territory exclusively to be able to occupy and use it, and our community found their way to working with that approach.
Senator Moore: Okay, so now you are going to own the 20,500 some acres in fee simple.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Senator Moore: No conditions — it's clear from the Crown, clear of any objection to title or anything else?
Mr. Francis: Yes.
Senator Moore: You have some people on the land who are leaseholds. Are they members of the nation or not?
Mr. Francis: A small handful. We create about 120 residential leasehold parcels. They have 99-year terms. They are generally put on the market for sale, and some of our own members have actually bought into some of those parcels.
Senator Moore: You talked earlier in response to a question from Senator Tannas with regard to subdivision. If you had created a subdivision, would the intent have been for the band to always own the land, or would you have sold off lots to me or to anybody else, or would you have just done leasing arrangements?
Mr. Francis: That is a good question, and it is a new place for us to be in. Generally, we do seek to develop a land base and a tax base. Our Sliammon government will be that tax authority. One of the questions was, what do we see as a vision for our nation? I see more people occupying or living on our land, the tax base expanding and the resources building to be able to build the infrastructure we will need going forward.
Senator Moore: What is the unemployment rate? You talked about it, but you didn't actually name the number.
Mr. Francis: It's high. Honestly, I don't know what that number is.
Senator Moore: Is it like 15, 20, 30?
Mr. Francis: It is 70, maybe.
Senator Moore: I will ask some questions about financing, if I may. The economic development fund is $7.3 million, and the fishing vessel fund is $300,000. What is that $300,000 supposed to get the band? Ms. Chao? It will not get them a new boat, that's for sure.
Ms. Chao: I am not too sure. Perhaps I will defer to the chiefs.
Mr. Francis: It is a negotiation that took place a lot earlier in our conversations. Sliammon was looking to maximize its access to fish resources in our territory. One of the things we came up with was a fund that we would have used for buying up fishing capacity — they are commercial licences — a boat or some other way of participating.
Senator Moore: This was to buy up allocation or licences from other licence holders and not so much fishing vessels for fishing.
Mr. Francis: Yes. It could have been whatever Sliammon decided worked best, but it was packaged, I think, as a boat and/or licence. I am not specific about the licence.
Senator Moore: These two funds are one-time payments. Ms. Chao, you said they are indexed to inflation, but beginning when?
Ms. Chao: The amounts are in 2012 dollars, so it would be from 2012 onward.
Senator Moore: Okay. You said that they are to be paid on an effective date, and a target is April 1, 2016. What do you mean by "target?" Is that floating? What is determining that date, and why isn't it being set? There are some pretty important numbers and things here, so why is it just a target?
Ms. Chao: It is targeted because the actual date must be upon agreement of the three parties: Tla'amin Nation, Canada and British Columbia. Each of the parties has to present the date that they wish and then, through some formal mechanisms, each party must commit to that date. For example, Canada must have an order-in-council setting that date, and that is set out in the bill. British Columbia's formality is to have a regulation set the date, and Tla'amin must have an indication of that date from their council.
That date is targeted because none of those formalities have taken place yet.
Senator Moore: If this bill goes through as is, I expect there is no more negotiating to be done; is that right?
Ms. Chao: Correct.
Senator Moore: Then it's a matter of the three parties going through their processes and getting it done — or whatever they have to do — and that will take another two years, is it? Mr. Molloy?
Mr. Molloy: Yes. There are a number of things that the agreement contemplates coming into effect on the effective date — for example, the transfer of the lands and that sort of thing. That takes an awful lot of work in order to be in a position to do the transfer and to do a number of the other activities that are contemplated that have to occur before the effective date.
We can't fix the effective date until we know when the treaty will be completely ratified. We have developed work schedules and plans toward implementing the treaty so that once the legislation passes, we would be in a position to agree on the effective date.
Senator Moore: I just want to understand the order. We have this bill. If it becomes law, then the three parties do their ratifying of it, then we have to deal with all the other items that you mentioned, and then the date is set?
Mr. Molloy: No. The other two parties, the nation and British Columbia, have ratified the agreement. This is the final step in ratification, if this legislation is passed. We have been working and developing the implementation plan and what needs to be done, so that we are pretty much in a position to agree on the effective date.
Senator Moore: May I ask a supplementary about the loans and so on?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Moore: The capital transfer is $31.1 million. What was the basis for the calculation of that sum; how did you arrive at that number?
Mr. Molloy: It was a negotiated amount. All of the numbers, the quantum of land — everything in the treaty — was a matter of negotiation between Tla'amin, Canada and British Columbia.
Senator Moore: How do you decide an amount of money like that? Is it based on historical experiences, the population, or future needs such as infrastructure? How do you come up with a figure like that?
Mr. Molloy: It is a calculation that is done taking into account the value of the lands and the other assets being negotiated or that would be transferred as a result of the negotiation.
The mandate is developed by the governments, and we start from there.
Senator Moore: The negotiation loans intrigue me. Up to March 31, 2010, the Sliammon Nation has borrowed from somebody, or maybe it hasn't — maybe just somebody has racked up hours here of $10 million. They had to come up with that money. What was the source of that, and what was it used for? Was it just to be spent on negotiating this deal?
Mr. Francis: The source of the money is the B.C. Treaty Commission. They play the role of administering loan funds to support treaty negotiation costs. Each year, a budget and a work plan are prepared. That gets presented to our nation. Once that budget is agreed upon, it is submitted to the B.C. Treaty Commission. The Treaty Commission provides the loan funds, and the loan funds are used to support the costs of the negotiation overall.
Senator Moore: Do they charge you interest?
Mr. Francis: There is an amount of interest.
Senator Moore: What is it, do you know?
Mr. Francis: Honestly, I don't recall what it is.
Senator Moore: I don't know why you have to pay money to negotiate. As much as the concessions you gave with regard to your lands — I think that's highway robbery. I think it's unfair that you have to pay that and that it will come off your $23.1 million; you will go down to $21 million. You will get a fiscal financing agreement fund of $40.8 million over five years, so you will get $8 million plus $1 million a year for five years. That is over then. You are now getting $5.1 million per year, and usually that would carry you on.
What is that fiscal financing agreement money for?
Mr. Francis: Fiscal financing agreement?
Senator Moore: Yes, the $40.8 million.
Mr. Francis: The fiscal financing agreement is a separate item from the negotiation repayment loan. The FFA, as we call it, is meant for education, social development, village maintenance, infrastructure. We agree that we prefer not to pay that loan amount back, if we could decide that. That was a very heated negotiation.
Senator Moore: I would have knuckled under on that. I find it so repugnant that you have to pay money to negotiate away your assets. That is just not right.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have three on second round. Do you have a supplementary on Senator Moore's question?
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Yes. With all the negotiations that have been going on for 20 years, what happens if there is a change of government? Do you have to start over?
Mr. Molloy: No. That hasn't been an issue; we move forward. There may be mandate reviews, but the negotiations continue.
Senator Moore: I just thought of something else. With regard to the negotiated loan sum, that is due March 31, 2010. Are there additional sums which can be added to that?
Mr. Francis: Yes.
Senator Moore: Right now, apparently it stands at $10 million. Is that meter still running?
Mr. Francis: The meter has stopped running.
Senator Moore: It has stopped?
Mr. Francis: Yes, at the point where the agreement was signed.
Senator Moore: In April?
Mr. Francis: Yes. At that point the loan fund had increased to just a bit beyond $11 million.
The Chair: That date, colleagues, was April 11, 2014, when the final agreement was signed.
Senator Moore: Good. Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, I have two more on second round. I do know that Chief Williams wrote to me earlier this year asking when the bill will be passed. We will suspend after we hear the witnesses and then I will ask the committee to consider doing clause-by-clause consideration today. Having said that, could I ask Senators Meredith and Beyak to keep their questions brief?
Senator Meredith: Thank you, chair. I only have 10 of them. Senator Beyak, do you want to go first?
The Chair: Go ahead; you asked first.
Senator Meredith: Quickly, with respect to the transfers and the accountability, Ms. Chao and Mr. Williams, who is responsible for these funds once they're transferred, and how will they be reported back to the department?
Mr. Molloy: There are obligations contained in the constitution of Tla'amin government for accountability to their people. There is a requirement that their government be open, democratic and accountable. They have the same kind of obligation as other governments do to account to the people and to be open and transparent.
Senator Meredith: Chief Williams, have you put in measures to ensure that because, again, there have been critiques with some First Nations and transfers, and the Canadian taxpayers are saying we have given funds. Where are they? Are why are they not open for us to be able to review and see how those funds have been spent?
Mr. Williams: The measures we have put into place are that our community voted on the constitution. We had the community vote and ratify a constitution about two years before the final agreement vote just to show the manner in which we would be developing the Tla'amin government.
Most recently, we have developed a finance administration law, and we just did a number of improvements to financial management on behalf of the nation. We have developed a finance administration law that is operational and in effect now. That law will be adopted to 2016, should the effective date happen in 2016.
Senator Meredith: My final question is that these negotiations or this treaty cost you approximately, if I heard Senator Moore's question to you, about $10 million; is that correct?
Mr. Williams: Yes, $11 million plus.
Senator Meredith: Those are funds that could have been spent otherwise given deficiencies in homes, and so on. Nevertheless it is done and you are here now. You had 90 per cent turnout in terms of ratification of this treaty. What steps are you taking to deal with those individuals who are still somewhat at odds with this treaty with regard to its going forward — and we will move it forward and pass it. How are you dealing with it to ensure, back to Mr. Francis' point, one heart, one mind, one nation in terms of having the people united around the economic possibilities and outcomes of having this full treaty embraced by all in your nation? What are you doing to win those individuals who are still somewhat disgruntled? Is there a potential of a court challenge in some way, causing further hardship to your community, and so on? I know that is a loaded question, so try to pick it apart.
Mr. Williams: I think you got all seven in there.
Senator Meredith: We try.
Mr. Williams: In terms of one heart, one mind, one nation, we currently have three working groups developing the Tla'amin laws and the government. One of the working groups is lands and resources; the second is the finance community working group; and the third is the governance working group.
We are trying to leave that door open for people to come in to develop the new Tla'amin government. We are leaving the door open and we are also including everyone in our planning and in the development that is happening now. We think of everyone as 100 per cent. We don't think of them in percentages, saying that 20 per cent voted no so we will only do this for the 80 per cent. I am just using rough figures, but we are doing this planning for 100 per cent of our people, not just for the ones who voted yes.
In terms of the $11 million, we probably would never have seen it anyway if we had not entered into the treaty agreement. There are big challenges on the housing front, and we are still working on that. We definitely have some issues with that and we are continuing to work on them.
The Chair: Thank you. In that connection, if I may jump in, Chief Williams, you said that after the ratification you ran for election and were elected in September 2012. Am I right?
Mr. Williams: That is correct.
The Chair: How long is your term?
Mr. Williams: We are still under the Indian Act, so just two-year terms.
The Chair: Okay, so to September of this year.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Senator Beyak: Senator Meredith did cover my question in his seven questions that he got in there.
Senator Meredith: We are a team.
Senator Beyak: We are televised across Canada and our committee hears a lot of sad and seemingly hopeless stories, so I want to thank you for bringing a breath of fresh air to our committee, which hears a lot of bad things sometimes.
The Chair: I understand that there are nine side agreements in the final agreement on fiscal financing, cedar and cypress harvesting, own-source revenue, real property tax, wildfire suppression and other issues.
These were not addressed in the final agreement. I wonder if anyone has any comments on that. Was there a reason for excluding those from the final agreement?
Mr. Molloy: They would have their provisions provided for in the agreement that these side agreements would be entered into, and they were contemplated by the final agreement. But they are separate because they would not have the constitutional protection that's afforded to the agreements that are in the treaty itself.
They relate, as you say, to fire suppression, tax arrangements between Canada and Tla'amin and the province and the First Nation. They contemplate that those agreements can either be set for X periods of time or are more easily amended.
The Chair: They were authorized by the final agreement.
Senator Moore: In connection with the questions of Senator Lovelace Nicholas and the capacity of the Sliammon people now to write their own laws, is it provided for that the laws that they pass must be Charter-compliant, Mr. Molloy?
Mr. Molloy: Yes, the Charter applies to the Tla'amin government, and their laws also have to comply with the treaty.
Senator Meredith: Chief, I don't think you answered that real quick question with respect to the possibility of any court challenges. Are there any pending right now? Do you foresee any of those individuals? I don't think you answered that.
Mr. Williams: We definitely had a couple of court challenges. Am I anticipating any? There very well may be. It may not only just be — I shouldn't say "just." It may not only be our Tla'amin people. Our member of Parliament has mentioned some concerns to us. So is it a possibility? I think there is probably a fairly strong possibility.
Senator Meredith: Don't mention the member's name, but what were his concerns?
Mr. Williams: They were concerns about the Sliammon law development authorities. He had concerns with Sliammon laws and that they would supersede Canadian law.
Ms. Chao: Just to follow up on Chief Williams's remarks, I want to bring the senator's attention to a couple of court cases that would make any new action quite difficult to support. In particular, specifically in reference to the Tla'amin Final Agreement, a court challenge was brought by a number of individuals who called themselves Tla'amin Elders Against Treaty. That went through a number of proceedings.
I will spare you the dryness of going through that, but at the end of the day, each of those proceedings held that the action did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. In other words, it could not proceed based on the grounds that were cited in that civil action.
Finally, I guess the final proceeding of that matter ended with the B.C. Supreme Court striking out the notice of civil claim in June 2013, so approximately a year ago.
There is a period in which the plaintiffs could have filed an appeal. They did not do so, so that action is on the books and can be used very effectively against another similar type of challenge.
In respect of what Chief Williams referred to as some of the claims made by the member of Parliament challenging the Tla'amin or any treaty First Nation's ability to make laws that would govern the Tla'amin people, we note that a decision was made by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in 2013. It was in an action that we refer to as the Chief Mountain case, and it was an action brought by a small group of Nisga'a members challenging the right of self-government in the Nisga'a Final Agreement.
In that case, the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that it is not necessary to identify the source of a right of a treaty First Nation to govern and that it was sufficient that the rights were validly delegated to the treaty First Nation by either Parliament or the provincial legislature.
In August of 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal, so that British Columbia Court of Appeal decision is on the books. I think it is safe to say that any challenge to the validity of a treaty First Nation's ability to govern or to legislate in its areas of law-making would be very challenging indeed.
Senator Meredith: Thank you so much. That clarifies it with respect to any ongoing or potential challenges against this treaty.
Congratulations again, and it took a long time, but go forth and help us help the young people. As I've often said, they're not just a percentage of our population, they're 100 per cent of our future.
The Chair: Did you mean go forth and multiply, Senator Meredith?
Senator Meredith: Their nation will be growing.
The Chair: Colleagues, I think we've had a thorough discussion of the bill. I'm glad it happened, in light of the procedure in the other place.
We'll excuse the witnesses, although you're all welcome to remain. Then I'll be asking the committee if they're willing to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
Is it agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to give effect to the Tla'amin Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I'm going to take the liberty of grouping some of the clauses.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you. Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the parts of the bill as described in the table of provisions of Bill C-34?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the interpretation section, which contains clauses 2 to 3, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 4 and 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 8 and 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 10 to 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 16 to 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clauses 21 to 26 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 27 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I will declare the bill carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to our report?
If not, then is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you very much, colleagues. We have had a thorough discussion of this important bill, and I know that we wish the Sliammon First Nation every success in moving forward from here.
(The committee adjourned.)