Sustainable Aquaculture — Issue No. 11 — Monday, June 19, 2006 a.m. (HTML)

2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE
MINUTES AND HANSARD

Robin Austin, MLA
Chair

Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Clerk Assistant and
Committee Clerk

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE



CONTENTS

		Page

Opening Statements		227
	C. White

Presentations		228
	C. White
	T. Ryan
	V. Jackson
	M. Ayranto
	J. Mackay
	K. Innes
	M. Hill
	M. Ridsdale
	R. McKay

Chair:	* Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
Deputy Chair:	* Ron Cantelon (Nanaimo-Parksville L)
Members:	* Gordon Hogg (Surrey–White Rock L) * Daniel Jarvis (North Vancouver–Seymour L) * John Yap (Richmond-Steveston L) * Gary Coons (North Coast NDP) * Scott Fraser (Alberni-Qualicum NDP) * Gregor Robertson (Vancouver-Fairview NDP) * Shane Simpson (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * Claire Trevena (North Island NDP) * denotes member present


Witnesses:	Mark Ayranto Matt Hill Ken Innes Rev. Vern Jackson James Mackay Raymond McKay Mike Ridsdale Teresa Ryan Chief Clifford White (Gitxaala Nation)

C. White: Time is actually moving on, and we want to provide as much time as possible for the people to have some input into this process. So if everybody can grab their seat.

Before we get started, I'd like to call on Rev. Vern Jackson to honour us with an opening prayer.

C. White: To get started on this process, I just want to start with some opening comments. The opening comment is for the provincial government and the Chair here, on the protocol process that has been almost nonexistent in the process of setting up this meeting and not consulting with Gitxaala in terms of setting up this meeting. Furthermore, there was no consultation at all with regard to this particular setup.

I think that's important because Gitxaala's rights, as far as I'm concerned, have been stepped all over and been kicked around in terms of how we move forward with Gitxaala's right to self-governance, when the province decides to come in here to have a meeting — not only setting up the meeting without any consultation with Gitxaala, but also setting up a process that we're not used to ourselves.

I recognize that they need to do a job. They need to get something going. I recognize that. I'm very busy, but there are other people that I can put in charge in terms of making sure that the process actually happens. When Robin did get hold of me a few weeks ago I did state to him that I was disappointed with regard to the protocol process that he had put in place, which was nonexistent.

He did apologize for that, but on coming in this morning to see the provincial parliamentary process that's actually put in place — again, with no consultation with us…. I just had a discussion with Robin about that as well. Again, an apology in terms of what the process is all about.

We have not given up any rights to Gitxaala territory — not one inch. The province hasn't bombed us out of here, and they haven't taken the land from us. We haven't sold it to them, we haven't given it to them, and we refuse to give up an inch to the province. We haven't given up an inch to the federal government, and we're not going to start that today.

This issue is important enough that we should have followed protocol to be able to deal with the issue. That's a whole separate process in terms of aquaculture itself, and we should have adhered to that, but we didn't.

Instead, what happens, what it looks like, is that the province comes waltzing in here, steps all over Gitxaala and says that we're basically insignificant in terms of how we move issues forward. Now, that's not right, and we need to send that message home to the province. Even though these are very tough, difficult issues to deal with, we need to be able to address each other in a very respectful way. This was totally disrespectful in terms of how this was set up.

I recognize that even in our community, we have people who are for fish farms and those who are against them, so that's not the issue. The issue is the protocol, the respect that is paid by one nation to another. We haven't given up any of those rights. The province has no right to work with us in the way they have been, nor to be very disrespectful in the way that they have been within this overall process.

Right now I am accepting Robin's apologies for the way it's actually moved forward, but I put it out to them that you should not deal with any other first nations in this way that you've treated us with regard to the protocol process. We need to deal with these tough issues, and we need to move them forward together, recognizing that some of our people are for fish farms and some of our people are against them. In future let's follow the protocol process, and we'll be able to work it through.

Robin has a number of speakers, and Robin will introduce each one of them — the people that are here from the province. I've deliberately plunked myself down here, because it's not right for the province just to come in here and be able to take over our governing structure and put in place their governing structure without us being present. That's what Robin and I quickly negotiated while we were next door, because the disrespect that has been put forward is totally unacceptable, and it would be unacceptable for us to back that for any other first nations as well.

Until you kill us off, until we sell you the land or until we give it to you, this is our territory, and we want you to know that very loud and clear.

I'd just like to respond and put on the public record that there has been a miscommunication in terms of how we went about the process of getting permission to come to the territory and this community of Kitkatla. As Clifford mentioned, a few weeks ago I did phone him and apologize and asked, specifically, for permission as the chief councillor for him to consult with his other councillors to give us permission. It was my understanding that that had taken place, but it appears it did not — at least not to his satisfaction.

I would like to make it absolutely clear that this committee is a consultative committee. It is here to come and listen to the leadership of Kitkatla and to the general population of Kitkatla, so that they can express their ideas vis-à-vis the aquaculture industry. It is our intention and always has been our intention not to come here in any way to dictate or to subvert the process of your nation.

I apologize for that, Mr. White, and I hope that we can now proceed and listen to what the people of

Chief White, you are the first person to present on behalf of the Kitkatla Nation. I would welcome you here and ask that you make your presentation.

C. White: The presentation is nothing that we haven't already heard throughout this community. There's been an ongoing process by which Gitxaala has been consulting internally on how to move forward with fish farms.

A few years ago the council of the day, including the hereditary chiefs, went into a meeting — and I have the documentation here as to who actually signed off on the agreement — with regards to fish farms, including the hereditary leaders who had actually put that forward as well. So we had a total process of agreement to move forward in the fish farming industry, both by our hereditary process as well as by our elected chief and council of the day. On both cases…. I read out just for the record:

Those of the hereditary process who were in position at the time: 21 were in favour, zero opposed, zero abstentions — 100 percent in favour. Now, that's from the hereditary process.

Then there was a contract agreement done that was written between the Omega Salmon farm and the chief and council of the day, as well, for which a total of the chief and councillors at that time had all agreed to. Those two documents are clearly in place with the Omega Salmon Group, which is now Pan Fish.

As a result of that, on my coming in as the chief councillor a little better than four years ago now, we had a community meeting under which we then had some discussions on this one to solidify whether or not the community was to move forward on the salmon farming or not. Then we put that process forward, as well, in the community. There was a very heated debate at the time, but the community at the time democratically agreed to continue to support the decisions that were made by the hereditary and by the elected chief and council of the day. With that in place we then continued to move forward, not aggressively promoting the envelope but allowing Pan Fish and Omega to continue doing their work.

Further to that, right at the very beginning of our work, during this community meeting that we held up at the school gymnasium, we listened to the community in terms of hearing what the concerns were.

The number-one concern that we heard was the environmental process. Those who had signed on to the agreement basically said that the environmental concern is in the contract, that if Omega, or now Pan Fish, didn't live up to the environmental concerns, Gitxaala held the first right to tell Omega Salmon to go away, to get out of Gitxaala territory. That's right within the contract itself.

We've been living up to that, and we've had an open door. Now, for those of you who have attended the other environmental fish farm meetings that I've been in, we've always kept the door open to the environmentalists, and we ask you for…. You know, we leased a scientific barge, which, after one year of having no income for that scientific barge because no environmental group would come on board, we had to have refitted to do our forestry work. So that went by the wayside. But today we still have the environment as the number-one issue, and we've been lobbying and putting together proposals to make sure that the environment is still number one in terms of how we move forward with salmon farming.

Hearing the community's concerns very loud and clear in terms of how we move forward in our aquacultural package, because since then, our aquacultural package has grown…. Our aquacultural package doesn't include just fish farms anymore. We are now doing ocean ranching. We're also into shellfish. We're also doing some research on sea vegetation. So our aquacultural package has grown, and as a result of that we're also including the environmental monitoring as a major package to all of those initiatives.

With that, it's probably a good time for me to shut up and pass the chair over to other people who are doing that work for us. We have recently hired on Teresa to head up our Gitxaala environmental process, which is over a couple of million dollars just for that alone. That money is not just going to fall out of the air. There's a lot of background work that's gone into trying to get that money for our environmental process. Teresa has been one of the few that have been in the background working hard and trying to make sure that our environment still continues to be number one, and we want to make sure that it's sustainable in all of the aquacultural activities that we have.

Fish farming is only a small package now to the overall aquacultural process that we're trying to move forward. Hopefully, you can appreciate the fact that…. You say: "Where are the jobs?" So far, to date, after four years of us talking about this, not one job has actually come out of it. Well, there actually have been some jobs on the fish farms. Some of our people are down south working on the fish farms. Overall, the opportunities with regards to the aquacultural field are huge. With the shellfish, the ocean ranching, the sea vegetation and the fish farming, the opportunities are huge.

As I heard this morning from Lax Kw'alaams, they said we would not give up the environmental concern over jobs and economic opportunities. I beg to differ with that when we look at their forestry program, but that's not the issue for today. We need to try to get the

money and put the money where our mouth is. I'll tell you: this has not been an easy task. The project that Teresa will explain to you in terms of where we're at on the environmental issue is….

That's what I heard the day that we had our meeting and that we agreed to move forward: the environmental issue had to be number one. This came from the youth. This came from our own people. This came from our elders. This came from the hereditary people. That is what they said: "We want to make sure that the environment is protected at all costs." So where our efforts have been is to try to tie down those resources to be able to make that happen.

We still stand open today. Any environmental group that wants to come in and assist us, rather than complaining and throwing darts from over there, come on board. See it first hand. Work with us first hand.

One last thing before I finish. Percy Starr — I just met with him a couple of days ago. They just had an evaluation on their site. The way they did the evaluation on sea lice was right at the site, at the fish farm, and then 40 miles away from the fish farm. There was no significant difference between those two sites. Percy thought they were going to be in trouble, but they found absolutely no significant difference in those two areas with regards to the fish farm area and 40 miles away. Not done by them but by an independent evaluator, in terms of where they're at.

If we want to look and see how things are actually being done, if we don't agree with Pan Fish, let's talk to our own brothers and sisters at Kitasoo and see how they're actually doing on moving their issues forward, because I don't hear any complaints from them. No one's saying that they're doing a bad job. As a matter of fact, they're creating a whole bunch of employment. They have to bring in people to employ just around that particular envelope itself.

R. Austin (Chair): Thank you, Chief White, for that very interesting discussion and for telling us what the history and the context of the aquaculture industry is here and what you've been trying to do for the last number of years.

I think maybe some members might have some questions to ask of you. But before asking them to pose questions, I'd just like them to introduce themselves so that people here in the audience know who is actually here on this committee. I'd like to start on my right there.

Chief, might I say thank you for letting us proceed with this. It's very helpful for us. We're here to learn and listen — that's our purpose — not to impose. We certainly hope that that is understood. Thank you for letting us proceed.

S. Fraser: Scott Fraser, Alberni-Qualicum. I'd like to thank you, Chief White and council and community, for inviting us to your traditional territory.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): I do just have one question. You mentioned Percy. Was that a site within this agreement?

C. White: No, it's outside of this agreement. That's the Kitasoo themselves, who have their own fish farms.

S. Fraser: Thanks for your information and the presentation, Chief White. You mentioned that in the contract with Pan Fish there's an environmental clause, which I think is wise. As you're no doubt aware, there are a number of first nations that have not got the same level of comfort with fish farms within their territories.

The contract has said…. Are there other obligations on behalf of Pan Fish regarding employment or financial or…? Is there anything you might be able to tell us that might help others?

C. White: Well, definitely jobs is one of the issues that we're looking at through fish farming. Rather than wait for the farm to become self-sustaining, there's a package there that Gitxaala will see X number of dollars once a certain number of farms — I believe it's four sites — are put into place. Then there's a financial package that comes to Gitxaala. So it's jobs, and there are financial agreements.

Thanks for going over the history of how you've got to where you've got as far as a resolution from the community regarding aquaculture within the region.

You may or may not know that we were met by a number of community members not living in the community right now — working in Prince Rupert and living there.

They had some concerns about being able to attend. Of course, we flew here. I understand there's a geographic challenge in getting back and forth here, and a

C. White: No, because you're having another meeting tonight, and I will be there tonight as well. A lot of those members, if not all of them, met you at the airline this morning. Some of their names — those that met you — are on here, on this agreement with Omega. That's what gets me.

When agreements are made, I'm expected to live up to them, but the people who signed off on them aren't expected to live up to them. There's a double standard that's actually been in place. I don't mind addressing those with the specific people who actually have their names on here. Hopefully, that answers your question.

G. Coons: Thank you, Clifford, for allowing us to come to traditional territory for the meeting today and for setting us straight. As we as a committee move forward, this is something I'm really appreciative of: that you did what you did because you had to. Our committee is in total agreement. We're pleased that we sorted it out. Thank you very much, and thank you very much to the community.

C. White: It takes a while to get projects up and running. Mike is our biologist here and has more information on that one, but I don't think he's on the speakers list. He's the one that's heading that up with us. We're at the initial stages. We're in a partnership agreement with Hartley Bay. There's a huge amount of cost in terms of getting those up and running.

You know, with ocean ranching, we're not expecting to get a return on that. It's a cost to us. We've been told already, "You're not going to make any money at that," but we want to take a look at the options. We want to make sure that we're not just going down this one road. So in our aquacultural packets we have the ocean ranching in that as well, and it's in partnership with Hartley Bay.

One last question. I'm just wondering. The two sites that have been approved were Petrel Point and Anger Island — aren't they? Their licences ran out. Those ones have been renewed?

C. White: Well, with the stone walls that you guys have been throwing up, you know better than I do that the province hasn't actually put those back out right now until you guys had your review.

G. Coons: Okay. I didn't realize that. I heard they'd run out, and I asked somebody from Pan Fish, and they just sort of said there was a process. I didn't quite ask the next question. So they haven't. Is that right?

D. Jarvis: Chief White, do you have a business proposal drawn up yet for your fish farm ventures?

D. Jarvis: Are you able to estimate how much employment you would gather out of that, with the farm in?

C. White: If we actually went into the ten sites like we said, we would have to bring in workers, just the same as with Kitasoo. I mean, Kitasoo doesn't have ten sites, but they have to bring in workers to actually make their farms work.

S. Simpson: Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for having us here and for speaking to us.

I have a couple of questions that relate to the environmental issues that you spoke of that were the most critical issues for your people in terms of making a decision to move forward on this. I don't know whether the best thing is to ask those of you or — is it Teresa, who is your staff? — if there are details here that Teresa can help with.

The questions I have are really twofold. The first is: what were the critical environmental issues for your community that you needed to be satisfied about? The second part of that is: what's the process that you're looking at going through to determine any impacts that there are and how those will be addressed?

C. White: There are a number of them. The three that really stick out were…. Sea lice, for one. I think that not only can we address them, but we can also use the studies that are currently there.

Now, the report card that just came out on Kitasoo. We should be looking at that very seriously in terms of how that actually impacts the environment, specifically on sea lice. My understanding is that Larry Greba is the person to contact on that recent report card that just came out on them.

C. White: The waste underneath, the feces on the bottom. Now, with Anger Island, Petrel — you know, the currents, the tidal scenario. Let me give you an example. How long has the sawmill been closed down in Prince Rupert?

C. White: And to those of us who have been living there: what did we see in Prince Rupert when it was open and running? A lot of foam — right? Foam all over the place. Nobody said anything about that. Environmentalists didn't touch that.

You know, you guys are opening up the Port of Prince Rupert. There is a whole bunch of waste that's coming in with the port. No one is really saying anything with that. They're covering it up. There's ballast water that comes in on each one of those ships that come over, and where do they dump it? Right into the ocean. To stabilize the ships as they're coming over, they fill them up with ballast water. That's from another ocean; that's from another territory. They bring it over here, they dump it, and they drain it here.

There are a whole bunch of things that we're kind of…. It seems like when first nations are trying to get ahead, they're being stomped on. And all of these other issues…. Oil and gas. We need one oil and gas spill to decimate our food process here. No one's really looking at that, and yet they're going to allow it to come through.

Enbridge is one of them. There's a new one that's coming on board, I heard this morning on CBC, that's going to be looking at the thinning of the oils. You start bringing that into our waters here, and you have one spill, and we're out of food for at least 20 years.

With the spill that went on up north, they still find the residue that is there. It still hasn't cleaned up the environment. Those are huge issues. We're talking about tidal currents here in terms of the feces that are put down.

There are also studies back east where they put a fish farm in place and they have sea vegetation on one side and shellfish on the other side. Each one of those is feeding off each other and doing very well. My understanding is that eight years later they're doing well. That's something we need to seriously take a look at in terms of how we move this issue forward.

The third one, other than sea lice and feces, is the escapement. There will be escapement. I'm not going to deny that with the weather that we have. We have to take proactive measures to be able to prevent that. There will be human error that allows for escapement. A lot of these things are taken into consideration as we move forward and try to make a sustainable resource here that does not affect our environment.

I hope that answers your question in terms of what kind of concerns Gitxaala has with regards to moving forward on environmental concerns.

One follow-up. As this is moving forward, has the community sorted out what kinds of processes need to be in place for you — I don't know whether it's ongoing monitoring or whatever — so you continue to satisfy yourselves that what impacts there are, are of an acceptable level and will be able to monitor escapes if they happen or monitor those impacts so that you have a comfort level that this is within a reasonable level of impact?

C. White: We have actually looked at that. Teresa will address some of the concerns that you have, because she knows a lot more than I do in terms of the specifics.

The idea in terms of moving it forward is to make sure that we have on-ground daily monitoring of all of the processes to make sure — whether it's shellfish, sea vegetation, finfish, whatever it may be — that our environment stays as pristine as possible and making sure that our children, from whom we have not given this territory away, still have the right to be able to harvest, whether it's wild or farmed seafoods.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much, Chief White. I have a couple of questions, one following on from Shane's. With your agreement with Pan Fish, is there any out-clause if you find that you're not happy with what is happening with the environment? If there is huge concern with your people for this, is there any way that you can say that the impacts are too great? Do you have a clause there to say…?

C. White: You know, Pan Fish has been very open with us on this one. When we had our meeting with the community, they phoned me and said: "We understand you guys are having a meeting. We will respect whatever decision it is that you guys come up with. As a matter of fact, I can tell Mark right now. I can say: 'Mark, it's time for you to leave the community right now, today.' We will make sure that he's on the first plane out of here, not to return." That's the kind of relationship that we've developed with Pan Fish, in terms of the openness that we have.

Pan Fish has not been closed in terms of the opinions that they have. They've been prepared to hear whatever voices that we have, too, and the concerns we have. That's why, if anything, I would say that Pan Fish has gone…. What program do you know of that has been so studied to death?

Pan Fish has put over a million dollars into this process already and has yet to see a penny come back. Over the years that they've been trying to develop this process, nothing's come back. What business can stand for that? I don't know of any. It's frustrating to see the obstacles that are put in your way as you're trying to develop the aquacultural industry.

With Pan Fish we have a relationship that I would say has been built up, but then we also have a relationship where we know that there's an exit clause as well, and it's very clear.

C. Trevena: Thank you. My other question is the wild fishery. What have you and your people noticed about the wild fishery, if anything, over the last five years or so?

C. White: We take no responsibility, to date, for the reduction of wild salmon. There have been articles that have actually been put in the paper saying that it's Gitxaala's fish farms that are partially responsible for the reduction of wild salmon in our area. We've yet to put down one smolt into the area, so as far as fish farms are concerned, nothing has affected the wild salmon.

I tell you: we are the guardians of the wild salmon. Everybody in this room will get up, and they will stand their ground in terms of saying that you should not harm one of those wild salmon unless you're going to

use it for food — everybody in this room. Practically the whole fish is used today, still. So you know, that's how much regard we have for the wild salmon. There is nobody in here who would actually say that we don't want the wild salmon to be there. We want to maintain that. We want to develop it. We want to make sure that the wild salmon is always there.

C. Trevena: I asked, not as a question of whether there's been any impact from fish farms, because obviously there aren't fish farms active here yet, but just in…. You know, we come along the dock, and there are fishing boats there. How much are your people still fishing? Is there any commercial fishery — and, also, for food and ceremonial?

C. White: That's a sad story. It's a sad story for us because wild salmon is quickly going by the wayside. This year we weren't able to get enough roe-on-kelp for our own community as food fish. The herring…. Out of the 13 licences that were here last year, two of the licences decided to go out. Our people know. Through the technical knowledge that we have, we know when we shouldn't be going out there.

We've been telling the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that you can't go out there and harvest the herring and that you can't go out there and harvest the roe-on-kelp. What do they do? We even use their own stats. They show where the line is, in terms of where they won't go out. We say: "You're too close to that line. Don't go out." Do they listen to us? Not really. They just continue to go out there. They fish, and they harvest.

We stood our ground this year, and we said: "We're not going out." We took the penalties in terms of paying for the licences to be able to hold on to them. Our people are getting less and less in terms of licences for our salmon. There are fewer of our people who have salmon licences. There is less food to go around for our people in terms of the wild stock in and of itself.

That is the unfortunate part. We are looking at how we can rehabilitate our own streams in terms of helping that process. Ocean ranching is one of the ways to help the stock to replenish itself, but then we won't see a return on that. I think the governments need to recognize, when they are looking at ocean ranching proposals, that today there is no profit in ocean ranching, unless you can tell me differently.

It sounds like you have a very proactive program on economic development for your community. I'm interested in your vision, how aquaculture in its different forms — shellfish, salmon farming — fits into your vision for economic development for your people.

C. White: I think finfish is a small component of the overall aquaculture. Shellfish, sea vegetation…. Right now we're quite concerned about seaweeds. Seaweed this year…. Some people will actually spread it. It's right at the prime — green seaweed. There shouldn't be any effect that it has on the seaweed, but when our people dried it, it came out grey. Why is that? Is it an environmental reason? We don't know.

Unfortunately, the people who did that threw away their seaweed, so we weren't able to send it in to have it tested. There is something going on that is affecting our sea vegetation, and our sea vegetation is a huge delicacy for our people. That is one of the reasons why we're looking at doing some sea vegetation farming, kelp being another one. Eelgrass is another one. There are different sea vegetations along with all of the shellfish that are there, whether it is abalone, clams or cockles. We're looking into those kinds of things because of the growth rate.

The turnover on that one is approximately, on average, five to six years. You invest these millions of dollars upfront into that program, and people are wondering how come you are investing these millions of dollars upfront when you don't see anything for six years. Whereas with fish farming, you can turn that around in a year or 20 months. You get a return on that one. We're looking at the overall package, including the sea ranching, to be able to fix our aquacultural program.

Roe-on-kelp is another one. We're trying to secure the inlet where Gitxaala has a major investment, because we're the only ones who should be controlling that, but right now we have outside interests that have more major control in that area than we do. We're trying to turn that around to where we have the major say in that.

J. Yap: So in all of its forms, aquaculture is a vital part of the economic future for your people?

C. White: Our people grew up on the water. We're looking at forestry, and our people don't really want to touch the power saw. They don't want to touch the tree. What they feel comfortable with is being on the water. That is where they grew up. That is where we grew up. That is where we get our food source from. The most comfort for our people is on the water. That is why we say environment is number one.

J. Yap: Your people are comfortable with farming of aquaculture, whether it is finfish, shellfish — all the different forms of aquaculture. Your people are comfortable with aquaculture.

C. White: It's a new program. None of our people right now are into any kind of farming. We're doing some tests. We're getting the whole mechanism put in place. We're revving that up, and we're trying to move it forward.

We're looking at the entrepreneurial program of our own people, people who are prepared to take on the risk of having some bins put down there for the shellfish, and they look after it just like they do in the Asian countries where it is all entrepreneurially driven. They all go to the market, and they sell it.

We're looking at setting up those kinds of mechanisms where our people can employ themselves and

other people through the entrepreneurial program. It's not just band-run; it's not just community-owned. It also goes out to the people, as well, so that they have that opportunity.

A lot of people recognize that there's a lot of risk that comes with that. There are a lot of finances that need to be put in place up front, so we have to work with our people to get them to the point where they're prepared to take that over in the long run.

J. Yap: Right. Finally, your agreement with Pan Fish covers all aspects of aquaculture or just finfish?

J. Yap: Actually, one more question. With regard to wild stocks — you touched on that briefly — I'm hearing that in your mind, based on your knowledge and experience, you don't see a connection between finfish aquaculture having a direct impact on wild stocks.

C. White: No. Over the last four years I've never read so much information, whether it's coming from David Suzuki or other environmental groups or from the provincial government. All of this information with regards to finfish, yet I have yet to see the devastation that people are actually talking about.

People have talked to me about devastation, about how there's no more life around fish farms. I've gone to fish farms just to see totally the opposite. People are literally fishing right off the camp and catching halibut, catching cod, diving and getting the restricted abalone. They're getting the shellfish right underneath.

Someone's got to show me what all of this controversy really is all about. A political football is what I see. That's what it really boils down to, because whenever I am invited to go and hear and see something….

That's why we put out the invitation to the environmental groups at the beginning. "If you're serious about this, let's put a scientific barge on the water." The only one that has invested into that to date is Gitxaala. Nobody else came on board. We're still pursuing that.

We've hired Teresa Ryan to head up our environmental monitoring and to put this process together. It's very expensive — really expensive.

We're not taking this lightly. It's a serious issue here, and I don't even know that we're going to see any returns on it. It's these kinds of issues…. This table feels it's not really a roadblock, but I think it is.

G. Robertson: Thank you, Chief White, for your words, and thank you to the community for having us here.

I have a question specifically on what your process will be with regards to changing the agreement, given that over the last four years or since you had unanimous approval, there have been a lot of environmental concerns raised by people focused on the environment and researching in the environment.

We recognize as a committee that there are still many gaps in the science, and there's a lot of understanding that needs to take place soon to be sure that the wild fish are not impacted. There are a lot of concerns over these last, say, four years since your agreement, and clearly, some of your people have changed their minds — maybe because of that, maybe for different reasons.

Going forward now, we don't know what will happen with the science. We don't know if there will be new studies that come out that prove or disprove.

What will your process be with your hereditary chiefs, with elected or with your community in deciding whether it's okay as is? Or are you going to change the agreement, and will the farms need to go away? How will you go about that?

C. White: Over the last four years — and my people can correct me if I'm wrong on this one — our hereditary process has worked very closely with chief in council. Chief in council has worked very closely with the hereditary process. We've had regular meetings within this community — at least once every six weeks in this community, in this hall and if not in this hall, in the gymnasium, which is larger than this hall.

That process continues to happen. Our next meeting is July 6 and 7. It's all mapped out in terms of when we meet as a regular community here. All of the issues that come up — whether it's fish farms or forestry or oil and gas or the Prince Rupert Port Authority, whatever it is — come up at that table.

Our process of consulting with our people is in place. My commitment to the people and my commitment to the hereditary process is to try to solidify that more and hear everybody. I've often said that we have to agree to disagree so that when we disagree, we still have to come back to this table and have those discussions.

As a result of that, some of our people have decided not to come back to the table. But we're hoping that they do continue to come back to the table in terms of talking about the whole issue around our table.

G. Robertson: Do you have a process for the members of your community who are not here in the village, whether they're in Vancouver or Prince Rupert?

C. White: At every one of those meetings, a ferry is provided for all of the members to come back from Prince Rupert. A ferry is provided for them to go back to Prince Rupert. All of the meals and all of the accommodations are taken care of within the community.

Our community has been very open to our relatives who are living away. We don't pay them for putting up our people. We don't pay them for the food that comes out of their fridges and freezers to feed them. They all come here on a voluntary basis. This is a cost that the provincial government and the federal government aren't paying for. It costs us over $60,000 a year to have

those meetings — just on the cost. But we're committed to the inclusion of all of our people, and that's one of the prices that we pay.

G. Robertson: One quick question specifically on Atlantic salmon versus chinook salmon. We've heard in different communities that some are…. For instance, in Clayoquot Sound they want chinook only. They don't want the Atlantic salmon in the farms around their territory.

My understanding was that Pan Fish has only Atlantic salmon in farms that they currently have. Is there a concern here in the village about having Atlantic salmon on your territory versus chinook?

C. White: Well, there's always a concern when you bring foreign product into the area. That's one of our biggest downfalls. Nowadays we're being overgoverned by foreigners, because we didn't heed that issue earlier. Foreign products that are coming out with regards to the ballast water that's coming in…. That's releasing stuff from the ships that we don't even know about.

Yeah, there is a concern that we have with regards to whether or not it's the local chinook versus the Atlantic salmon.

G. Robertson: Is that part of the agreement right now — that it is chinook? Can it be Atlantic?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): A couple of questions on the business plan. You were looking at ten sites. How many do you expect would receive approval…?

C. White: So far, only the two sites have actually received approval. We were hoping to get going on four. Once we hit three sites…. We'd actually open up with three sites, not four. Then we'd look at the next three after that, going up to the total of ten. But we're looking at more than just the ten sites, because we need to continue moving those sites around.

If you take a look at Port Ed, it almost looks like you have pristine water around those years of pollution that the sawmill put out. Well, seabeds are the same thing. Water comes, and water goes; it cleans itself. The research going on right now with the sea vegetation and the shellfish showed that they live compatibly side by side. That's what we're looking at in terms of moving this issue forward.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Were they looking at a production facility or processing facility as well here?

C. White: Right now it's not viable as far as costs, because costs are one of the things. We don't want to get into a venture where we're actually cutting our own throats around costs. We're trying to get it to market as soon as possible, having a processing plant which our people have asked for….

C. White: We've asked for a processing plant, but we know the viability around that. We have to really sharpen our pencils to be able to make it viable, if we're going to go that way.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): One other question on the business plan: what sort of impact…? What sort of unemployment do you have in the band now, and what would you see that affect? How would that…?

C. White: I think that since Pan Fish has got in, we're probably down to about 80-percent unemployment. Pan Fish has employed most of our people. They've educated them over the last three or four years right here in the community. That's a huge cost that's been put out there. It's still down. Even with Pan Fish right now, with the education program that's in place and our forestry, we're still at 80 percent.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): You mentioned earlier…. Your comment was — I think in reference to the province — that you're being stonewalled. You feel we're holding up the process. I'd just like to comment on that briefly.

This is an information-gathering panel. There may be differing individual views, but the mandate of this panel is such that we have no….

There is no moratorium on fish licences. In fact, one has proceeded. There are concerns raised, and you've heard about them too. We're to review those concerns in a community context, but the process is not being held up while work is being done.

C. White: Yeah well, I think it's Gary who has been very straightforward in that he has a mandate from the people of Prince Rupert on anti–fish farming. Gary has been very open with me on that one, and that's his mandate: to try and put forward the concerns of the people.

I'm sure there are other people around here that have been voted in under that banner, so that is a stonewall. That is something we're being held up by that's cost the community quite a bit. It is a barrier to us, because we obviously have to wait for you guys to finish in order for the province to look at those licences — right?

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Well, not exactly. As I said, one has gone ahead since this committee opened. So presumably, they're all proceeding, and there are two different packets. We will, at some point, be reporting on our general findings, and then the government will take it from there. But this committee does not have the ability or the mandate to say stop. Indeed, the government is proceeding, has proceeded with one fish farm licence since we began deliberations.

I would now like to ask that Teresa Ryan come up to the witness table and make her presentation.

Hello, I'm Teresa Ryan. I'm from the Gitlaan tribe, Tsimshian Nation, and I welcome all of you here. I want to thank you for listening to the words that are spoken here today in English. I wanted to point out, through my introduction, that English is not the first language here. Sm'algyax is the language that is spoken in this land — throughout all of the area, the Sm'algyax-speaking people.

That language is tied to the land. That teaches us how to use the resources on the land. We learn that from generation to generation. It's passed down from elders to those of us that are strong and young and can gather the resources from the sea.

That ocean out there is the refrigerator for our communities. We don't see a Safeway across the street here. It's out there in the water. That is the most important factor for protecting the environment for the people.

We need to take care of our communities. That's a part of our ayaawx. We call that our laws. Taking care of the people means taking care of the resources. That goes for thousands of years in our past and creates who we are as an identity, and it will progress forward into the future.

In the English language we refer to that as traditional ecological knowledge — our use of the environment. For years we've been wanting to have our knowledge as first nations people incorporated into resource management, into the way that resources are being used — often out of our control; often without our participation, such as in forestry and in fisheries.

We have seen 100 years of commercial fisheries conducted on the very same fish and resources that we have learned sustains us for thousands of years. We have watched them deplete rapidly. We have seen our abalone fishery get opened as a commercial fishery in the early '70s and collapse. It's a delicacy for us — bilhaa. We treasure that to this day, but we can't have it — just like we can't have access to other resources.

If we can't have access to the resources and we don't have a Safeway across the street, what are our options? The employment in the area and in the region has been difficult to come by, particularly for first nations people, because we don't have access to resources and we're restricted on our ability to come back and forth to areas where we may learn higher education programs and job training skills. We don't have access to those in these remote communities.

We want the opportunities. We want to be able to participate and contribute to the health of our communities. The will is there.

As we move forward in looking at how we can do this, we look very carefully at the opportunities that are presented to us in a manner that is consistent with everything that we are as an identity. That means that if we're going to take on some economic development, it has to maintain that consistency with our stewardship of the land and the resources.

That is what I see happening here with Kitkatla. They've taken the time. The community participates. They understand what the venture holds for them. It holds promise. It holds the opportunities to keep people in the communities, to have them employed here — to have them employed, here. It helps to inspire our youth and younger generations to participate in the use of the resources and the environment again, like we've done for thousands of years.

Now to look at how we're going to protect that from a scientific perspective. I am a fisheries aquatic ecologist. As a fisheries scientist I'm trying to find methods to integrate our knowledge into resource management, as I've mentioned. How do we do that? As a scientist I've gone and obtained degrees and skills that I can use for stock assessment, habitat assessment, sampling, protocols. I've actually conducted activity on the north coast to sample the environment. What do we have out there? What is there now that we can look at so that through time we can do additional sampling to see if there are any changes?

There were two years of a baseline study done on the north coast. I am a principal investigator in both years. However, I've only been actively involved in the first year. I'm a bit concerned, as a principal investigator, to see the other principal investigator talking about results and data for something that I, too, am supposed to be a principal investigator on, and that's the north coast baseline and sea lice study.

I am a principal investigator on that, and I do hope that we can resolve this disparity in communication on this project. The intent of that project was to go out and sample our wild juvenile salmonid distribution in this area, in the Skeena estuary, to see where they are and to see if they had sea lice on them. We don't have any farms operating in this area. This is a unique opportunity for us to get the baseline data that may not have been gathered in other areas where there are active sites. Now we have a reference point for one item.

The complexity and dynamic nature of this ecosystem up here mean that we have to sample from many different things to get this baseline information that we need. We want to understand what the dissolved oxygen is in areas. What are the baseline conditions for that? We want to know what's going on in the water column in the abiotic sphere, the chemical sphere. What's there?

That's what we have an opportunity to do in developing this Kitkatla environmental monitoring program. What it will do is incorporate the traditional knowledge that we have of the environment. Looking at the conditions that we see right now, we can measure and observe as scientists, and then, through time, we can keep making these measurements and have something to compare.

If need be, we can make adjustments, fine-tune or just convey the information, so that it's appropriate in making sure that the needs for Kitkatla community are

being met. This is their program. This is Kitkatla's territory. They want to protect that. They want to make sure that it's there in perpetuity for their people. They want to have jobs for their people. They want to be contributing to this economy here on the north coast in a meaningful way.

When we have that type of productivity in a local area, it permeates out to the region. It will start to accelerate, and we're going to see a positive change in the north coast, in the economy. We haven't had access to the resources. There have been changes at various federal and provincial levels regarding the resources in our territories, as I'd started off with.

I also wanted to mention, in closing, my other hats that I wear. I am a scientist on the Pacific Salmon Commission, joint chinook technical committee, on behalf of Canada. I am vice-chair for the B.C. Pacific Salmon Forum, appointed by Premier Campbell. I'm a senior policy adviser for the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia. I'm first nations chair on the B.C. Aquaculture Research and Development Committee Aqua E-Fund.

Let's see. Have I forgotten anything? Those keep me very active. My role is, in everything that I do, to make sure that we're looking after the interests of protecting the environment and the resources they contain for first nations people, helping us to improve our access, improve our dialogue so that we can improve our ability to reach for those opportunities. They're right there.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Sorry, Teresa, but I can't quite hear everything you said, with this noise behind us, and my hearing isn't that good. That's the main reason, I presume.

You've created a scientific baseline so that you could monitor any effects, so that when fish farms — presumably the chiefs' wishes are fulfilled — are put here, you can monitor any changes. What would be the scope? What would be the specifics that you're looking at in establishing those baselines?

T. Ryan: It's looking at establishing a baseline condition overall. In this particular estuary it's very dynamic — a freshwater-saltwater interface with the fresh water coming from the mountains, the runoff from the Skeena and the Nass rivers and a couple of other tributary streams on both sides.

It's not just for finfish farming. It's also for all the other impacts, such as Chief White referred to — the ballast water from ships that are coming in, the effluents from the pulp mill that have continued through time. Mining activities have occurred in this region for a very long period of time and will likely occur again.

There are several types of impacts that are occurring on the north coast. In our history in the last 100 years there hasn't been a large volume of data collected. What we're doing is sampling the biota and the abiotic conditions. The biota is, of course, the biology, all the species. We're having a look and seeing what we have. Do we see specific conditions within species?

We may look at shellfish and some specific toxins in shellfish to determine what their condition is. Right now on the north coast shellfish have been subject to paralytic shellfish poisoning and those types of toxins that prevent us from harvesting them. So we want to make sure that we understand what those levels are.

We also want to look into the water columns and into the sediment to see if there are any metals that have accumulated from some of the industrial activity. What that does is give us something to measure against. Let's say we had done these types of studies a hundred years ago near the Skeena mill and now took samples. Would we see any difference? That's what we need to know: what is our impact on the environment?

We want to make sure that we're protecting the environment as broadly as possible, because every part, every aspect of it is a part of who we are. All of the species up here are up here because they interact in certain trophic interactions and at a very dynamic…. I don't want to call it an equilibrium, but it doesn't occur like this anywhere else in the world.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Just a quick follow-up. If you were to see anything that alarmed you, presuming the fish farms proceeded, your role would then be to help advise the Chief to raise any alarm bells that might occur. Am I right in assuming that?

T. Ryan: If there were. But the nature of taking samples and of science itself…. It's fairly unusual for any scientist to do one study and make a claim. It's the perpetual nature of questions for science. If you have a time series of data, maybe. If you're looking for something specific and you've actually determined that your null hypothesis can be tossed out, then you're actually using science.

Yes, the whole purpose of my job is to inform the community and make sure that they can make the decisions they need to make.

S. Simpson: One of the things that I guess I've been hearing through our first set of hearings and in discussions we've had, and I've had, both with people who are strong proponents of aquaculture and those who are strongly opposed to aquaculture…. Often I hear from the proponents that everything is fine and great and that everything is an upside to aquaculture. Then I hear on the other side that we're on the border of some things that are quite catastrophic in terms of the wild fishery and the effect of aquaculture.

My guess is that someplace in the middle is the real situation. Part of our struggle is to try to find that place in the middle between some very impassioned feelings on both sides of this issue — and understandably so.

As somebody who is a scientist and who has looked at this in terms of science — looked at it, from what you're saying, in somewhat of a dispassionate

view and said, "What is actually occurring there, and what's the best advice I can give to the Kitkatla people so they can make the decisions that are in the best interest of the community?" — where do you think the biggest challenges are for us as a committee — the key issues that we should hang most of our attention on to make the determinations that we need to make to provide advice to the Legislature?

T. Ryan: From this meeting in Kitkatla or overall? I'm going to take this meeting.

S. Simpson: Well, certainly here, because I know this is what you're most directly involved in but, also, when you….

What brought me to ask this question is when you talked about your activities and your credentials and the roles you play at a number of different levels. I thought: here's somebody who looks at this in terms of the community but who also needs to look at this at a broader level because of other responsibilities. I thought: here's somebody that I'll ask this question of.

T. Ryan: I think, Shane, that this is an issue that has multiple facets as a society. It has multiple facets, perhaps for varying reasons. In the context of the task you have, I do believe that as an elected official, you have a responsibility to look at factual evidence as best as can be provided through your deliberations and your journey. I can't tell you one way or the other. I think it would be unfair for me to give you an expectation that I'm not sure what it is.

We face this often with issues that we deal with — for example, as first nations. What we would like to see done to help us to improve our living conditions — it's not a simple answer. There are no simple answers. If it's a simple answer that someone's going to expect, then they're not thinking realistically in terms of the overall picture. This is a complex issue.

It's also a time in our history when we have rapid communication ability. We now have access to information at our fingertips, so we can have all types of information on other areas of the world in minutes. We can look at Norway. We can look at Chile. We can look at New Zealand and any other area of the world to see: did they come across similar types of scenarios, and how did they address it?

That's very useful, but I think the answer to your question lies in the deliberation of your whole group. Good luck to you.

D. Jarvis: Ms. Ryan, with regards to sustainable sites, you have more or less stated that you have about three right now and another three pending down the line. I'm not familiar with your territory, but are they situated between, say, the Nass and the Skeena?

D. Jarvis: And is there sufficient flow in there — i.e., like the Kitasoo had?

T. Ryan: Yes. Those are very simple questions. No to your first question. Yes to your second question.

For a very long time — and this gets overlooked — in our use of the environment and the areas that we've lived for thousands of years, we have created improved access locally, which would be called culture. We would place berms, we would place weirs into substrates, and we would capture the organisms for varying periods of time for improved growth, improved production. We know where those sites are that are favourable to growing conditions.

In contemporary times if we have an opportunity to put some other product in there and maximize some growing and productive opportunities, why wouldn't we? We do that with our herring, our spawn-on-kelp and clams.

We are familiar with those types of sites that are ideal for that, and that's where our traditional ecological knowledge is very valuable in informing this process so that the siting criteria meet the needs of the production while also maintaining that environmental integrity.

G. Coons: I realize the importance of baseline data. I'm just wondering. In the baseline data…. You're doing it, obviously, on salmon. Is it juvenile, adult, out-migrating or incoming?

T. Ryan: For the two years that I was listed as a principal investigator on the studies, the sampling was done on juvenile salmonids only. This is only one element of the big picture. We have five salmon species up here. It's important for us to have information on the other salmon species as well. But these particular studies were a starting point to gather our environmental information for the whole area, and it will continue through time.

I would be hesitant to say that we would have a completion at any time within the next 50 years. It's going to take a long time for us to get the information that we need to understand and put into models that give us data. If we were to build data models, which we intend to do and are working on, we need to gather a huge volume of information. That's just a teeny, tiny drop in the bucket. It's the first penny in the collection, and we've got a long ways to go.

G. Coons: One last comment. When we were in Campbell River, First Dollar — Leanne Brunt and Barb Walker — gave us Salmon Farming: The Whole Story by Peter Robson. I tried to do some reading into it. Again, as we look back at the past and the European data and the salmon aquaculture review recommendations that looked at scientific gaps and the Auditor General's reports that are concerned about wild stocks, as you know, and the interactions between aquaculture….

In the conclusion of Peter Robson's book it says that research is expensive, and a great deal of it is still needed to understand the dynamics of wild salmon, the natural occurrence of disease, interactions with sea lice, and so on, to collect baseline data that can be used to determine how salmon farming is affecting them. Again, I foresee us sitting here because that baseline data and the research even from the salmon aquaculture review…. Governments, both federal and provincial, have reneged in their obligations of getting that baseline data. The public needs to look at the effects and where we go to create sustainable aquaculture.

One thing — just a comment. I don't know if this is a question or not. I really noticed, just for territorial aspects, that not much is mentioned about first nations and fish farming and territorial rights and how it spreads in regions. Again, I'm looking forward to the baseline data. Hopefully, we can get that as soon as possible.

T. Ryan: You know, you're right. It is very expensive to do baseline data collection. But if you expect or anticipate that if you run a sampling program, it can come up with an answer, and we should wait to do anything until then…. That's a bit naive. What we've got is a huge volume of information on our use of the environment that we've established over thousands of years. If I were to sit down in a room with a group of elders that have been out here for the last 50 years, I could probably get information from them about dissolved oxygen levels without having to drop a single meter in the last 25 to 50 years, because of what they have observed in the changes in the environment or the consistency in the status of the environment if it stayed the same.

Just because it's not written into a peer-reviewed literature journal or grey literature doesn't mean that it's not valid information on what's going on in that environment. Honestly, we would certainly like to be compensated and paid for our knowledge of the environment as well. It's expensive to gather information, but it's also very costly to us to have damage to that environment. We're going to make sure we understand what the environment is going to have in it to maintain the protections that we want on our resources. It's quite simple.

D. Jarvis: I'm into the operations of the thing, so I was going to ask you a question, but I'll wait for the next witness.

R. Austin (Chair): I would now like to call Vern Jackson to come up and make a submission.

V. Jackson: First of all, I want to acknowledge that you are in the traditional territory of the Gitxaala people. You are in the traditional territory [Sm'algyax spoken] of all the tribes of this nation. We have always inhabited this territory, and as I was corrected on a few days ago, we are one of the few nations that can say we have inhabited this territory since time immemorial.

I want to begin by saying that it was the spring of 2000 that Omega Salmon Group, now Pan Fish Canada Ltd., contacted the Gitxaala Band Council to express an interest in their traditional territories and request permission to enter the territory to see if it had potential for future expansions of salmon farming, if and when the moratorium on farmsites was lifted. Omega confirmed that if and when Omega expansion commenced in the Gitxaala traditional territory, this nation would be party to a long-term agreement.

For the next year the chief and council of the day conducted their due diligence on Omega and the Alpha processing plant in the winter of 2000. They were accompanied to Port Hardy by Hereditary Chief Russell Gamble, negotiator Cecil Hill, a natural resource manager and the band manager. They toured the saltwater salmon farms, hatcheries and processing plants at Port Hardy.

Next, the council stated to Omega that they would have to address the public, which was done on January 23, 2001, and then again on April 23, 2001. There was a PowerPoint presentation on the fish farm sites, on the hatcheries and on the processing plant as well.

The full presentation of the Gitxaala-Omega salmon farm agreement was spelled out in the terms and conditions, including financial terms, training and employment obligations, requirement for a minimum number of sites, requirement to build a processing facility in the north, first rights, opportunities and the number of years.

Then on January 26 a large delegation made up of our hereditary chief, Gitxaala elders, house leaders and trapline holders — totalling 23 representatives — arrived in Port Hardy to meet with the CEO, the processing plant managers and a consultant. There were a number of open and frank discussions regarding the proposed agreement. We also took time to tour fish farm sites, processing plants and the well boat.

On the farmsites we saw that they use ten pens with an average of 30,000 pieces of Atlantic salmon averaging ten pounds apiece. The sites had been in operation since 1992. The adjacent ocean beaches were inspected and found to be alive with sea life, and the pontoons around the cages were covered with mussels and other marine plants. There were large kelp beds within 200 metres of the frames.

We also watched the feeding process and viewed the Atlantic salmon eating through underwater video cameras, which are used to monitor the feeding cycles to ensure that the salmon are not overfed. After the tours, the delegation heard from the Omega Salmon Group, now Pan Fish Canada, on human resource development for on-the-job training, which commenced in February of 2002.

There were discussions with commercial fishermen, elders and house leaders on tidal flows, outflow winds from the Skeena and other rivers, high wave actions

and rough seas at all areas of the territory. The selection criteria were reviewed, and our delegations were informed that with the very strict guidelines, this allowed the sites close to any salmon-bearing streams or clam beds. The farms required a distance of three kilometres between them. Sites were restricted from being located where herring spawned or in a navigational channel, sites tentatively selected by Omega.

On January 27, 2002, at the airport in Port Hardy, B.C., a resolution was put to the floor in the presence of our hereditary chief, chief and council, CEO of Pan Fish, and a total of 23 from the delegation from the hereditary table, elders, landholders, which stated:

The result of this motion was 21 in favour, zero opposed, zero abstentions — 100 percent in favour.

A few months later Omega Salmon Group, now Pan Fish Canada, stayed true to their word and offered eight positions for on-the-job training in order to gain the experience to work on salmon farm sites. Eighty-six people applied for these positions. Each one of the eight selected received the six months of on-the-job training.

Omega then began the process of carrying out the underwater marine survey and hired divers from our own community for sites which may be suitable for fish farms. The first site to receive approval was Anger Island, then Petrel Point and the last being Strouts Point, which is still in the process.

In the summer of 2003 funding was applied for to Human Resources Development for capacity-building through Ganhada Management. There were a total of ten successful candidates, and also ten completed the first-round training in 2003 and 2004. This started up again in the fall of 2004 and was completed in July 2005 with another ten fully qualified fish farm workers. These same workers have equal opportunity to climb the corporate ladder.

Immediately after graduation for both these years, Pan Fish offered each candidate the opportunity to have gainful employment, and now we have eight people working full-time down in Port Hardy and Campbell River. The balance of these are waiting for sites to be up and running here within our own territory.

Since the beginning of this opportunity we have faced a large number of challenges — other nations coming in and basically telling our nation what we can and cannot do within our very own traditional territory. The total numbers that are tied to the Gitxaala Nation are approximately 55,000 kilometres. We have been occupying this since time immemorial.

The Gitxaala Nation has never yielded nor surrendered nor withdrawn aboriginal rights and title, and we'll continue to assert our interest and to exercise our nation's aboriginal rights over the three sites which have completed all the required protocols, including the remaining sites which are deemed suitable. Gitxaala Nation is committed to the protection of aboriginal rights and title of our territories. Through this economic development the Gitxaala Nation will exercise its inherent right of self-government, self-determination, and through Pan Fish, provide an industry that is viable, sustainable and environmentally sound.

I would like to express that our neighbouring nation Klemtu have just completed a testing on their clam beds. There was absolutely no contamination found in their shellfish and in the farmsites that are situated just a few metres offshore from these.

Our community, we have always been devastated. We have always gone through such hardship with a high unemployment rate. This community — which I've just mentioned that we've inhabited since time immemorial — was once a thriving community within the salmon industry. Today when you people walked up there, did you count how many gill-netters we have? Did you count how many seine boats? Just about nothing.

Every household used to, at one time, survive from the wild stock, and this is no longer there. Why? Ask yourselves these questions, because you cannot deny it. You were part of this destruction as well as we were, because it was thriving at that time. Here all our people want to do who are in favour of it…. Granted, we know there are people who are opposed to this, possibly because we are always being fed with rhetoric that comes through the media. That's a big tool that is being used.

Some of you people…. I will be so bold as to say this. As Gary Coons mentioned when they had the candidates forum in Rupert…. He said: "Read my lips. There will be no fish farms in this area." That's quite a bold statement to make, and I will tell you why.

So many, the federal government included, have been holding the hands of my people for so long, and it's a shame. I'll tell you why I say this. Indian Affairs, when they first came out here giving out welfare…. I forget what they called it. They called it relief. They came out here and had a big meeting. Indian Affairs said: "Oh, you don't have to work anymore. We'll give you all the money you want. All you'll have to do is go to the store and get some food."

Yet our people were fishermen. They were hunters. You know what one of the elders said at that time? He said: "You have just spoiled the Indian." That is what has happened, and that is happening today. That is why we have such a high number of spending in social development.

I want to tell you that these waters here…. Our people have inhabited these waters for so long, since time immemorial. We have a lot to gain. We only want to practise at least a part of what examples have been set out there for fishermen. Fishermen want to stay within the fishing industry so at least they can come in and look after the sites — look after them and at the same time look after their families.

I want to say about the company that I work for that they've been so bold in putting in the agreement they have with the Gitxaala Nation. They said: "If there are any environmental impacts in your traditional territory, any of these people behind me can stand up and can demand that they be shut down, and bang, it will be."

That's how important our traditional territory is. We want to stop holding the hands of the people who want to put food in our mouths. Our people want to do it themselves. They want to do it themselves, and they want to do it with aquaculture that we believe is sustainable and environmentally sound.

I wonder how many of the oil industry can do that. Owners of the forestry that do some harm within our environment — I wonder if they can do that. Tell me: can they?

Look at these people here. The only thing that has provided some employment — it's sporadic — is construction. The only construction that we have now are the three small buildings that are going to provide for our elderly and our handicapped. It's going to be cut off in a few months.

What else do we have left? We have fishermen for two years in a row who have had to have their nets cut in half, just so they could go fishing. Did they make money? No, they made money for stamps. Unemployment — that is still welfare. Come on, now. That is still welfare. We want to participate in something that we know is sound.

I wouldn't be involved in this if I didn't think it was sound — I wouldn't be. Our Chief Hale, up at the memorial gym, at one time spoke. He said: "If you have something else here in place that is going to overtake the agreement we have with Pan Fish, bring it up now. If not, we're going to go through with this."

Some of our elders say that where they used to follow the Chief, they used to follow him with respect. They used to follow him with honour, and whatever he decided, our Smgyigyet, the elders and the whole community followed him. Why? Because they respected his chieftainship. They respected his authority. That's what happened. That's the way we govern ourselves, not to be summoned to a table like this — right? Not to be summoned to a table like this.

I want to ask you people this question: if you're going around to see all the communities that are going to be involved in this, how come you're going way up in the interior? We don't tell those people how to live. We don't tell those people how to govern themselves. Let me ask you people who sit on this panel: do I tell you what you can and cannot do for employment? I don't, because I don't have that right.

My only interest is here with my people — those who want to seek employment. I want to see capacity-building. We've had them for two years in a row, and you know how much this cost? Pretty close to half a million dollars for two years, and we've had 20 people — 20 people now — that have graduated this program last year. We couldn't have it this year. Why? Because there is so much rhetoric that is influencing the way we want to proceed.

We have to stop holding the hands of the people who want to guide us along. We have a right to self-government. We have a right to self-determination, and you people are going to take that away from me? If that is the case, I want Gary Coons to give me a job. I want Gary Coons and any one of you that is opposed to this to give me a job and my family, who sit behind him. I have a granddaughter. I have a son who is employed in the fish farms and has to go down to Vancouver Island. Give me the money, so I don't have to work.

R. Austin (Chair): Do members have any questions? No? I think you've said it all. We're speechless. Thank you very, very much for your presentation.

We are running quite far behind time. The next presenter is Mark Ayranto, and my understanding is that Mark has a slot to present to us in Prince Rupert in a couple of hours. Maybe Mark would be willing just to hold off and make that presentation in Rupert instead.

C. White: My concern is that Mark does have some background financial information that would be relevant to this group and to our people as well.

R. Austin (Chair): Okay. Mark, your presentation is separate and different from the one in Rupert, I take it?

M. Ayranto: I'll just make this really quick, because I think it's really important that as many people can speak as possible.

I'm going to hand this out, because undoubtedly you've heard that the sites are in the mouth of the Skeena. I have a map here, which I'll maybe pass around, and everybody can move it along. I'll just talk about it as we're passing it out, but essentially, it provides the location of the three sites, two of which have approvals. The one additional site is at Strouts Point.

R. Austin (Chair): Excuse me, Mark. Could I just ask you what your occupation is?

M. Ayranto: I work for Pan Fish Canada. I'm the licensing and development manager and project manager for the north coast expansion for Pan Fish.

As this is coming out, you can see the location of the three applications, Kitkatla and Prince Rupert. I'd like to point out that despite what is commonly reported in the media, Petrel and Anger are over 70 kilometres from the mouth of the Skeena, and you can see there where we have taken the measurement. It's just done on a computer; there's no manipulation on it. Strouts Point is over 35 kilometres away. Prince Rupert itself is not nearly that distant; it's closer to 27. I just

wanted to provide this to put it into context in your discussions in the future.

I think what I would really like to do, to kind of build upon what Chief Clifford White and Vern Jackson have said, is to talk a little bit about the due-diligence process. Very quickly, I'll touch on that — this community's stake and what I've witnessed as project manager — and then just very quickly on some of the economic potential that comes out of an agreement such as this with, possibly, ten farms.

As you've heard earlier, there was a two-year due diligence completed from when we first initiated some discussions with the community and before we had an agreement in place. During that process, when Pan Fish — then Omega Salmon — first contacted the community, we said: "We would not stake any applications within your traditional territory unless we had an agreement or are likely to get an agreement." We made that commitment up front, and I think it's a unique model. Certainly, at that time and since then, I have been told several times it was the first time a company has come in to speak with the community before operations and to make that commitment.

I think it's a model that we should be using into the future. If it wasn't the issue of salmon farming, it would probably be hailed as a good-news story in the Vancouver Sun. There is a common notion that we went very quickly and that it's been hastily done and rushed through. I think our first discussions were in late '99 or 2000, through the two years of due diligence.

You guys know the work. You're going to be doing this for almost a year. You're probably a bit burnt out; it's many hours going through it. Certainly, there's been the salmon aquaculture review. Quite frankly, I haven't seen anybody do a stronger due diligence on this industry — and, specifically, Pan Fish — than the community of Kitkatla before we moved ahead.

Just to touch on a couple of the things that were done, and done several times over. There were several meetings with chief and council, with the hereditary leadership, with the community. There were public debates within the community without Pan Fish being present.

There was certainly a thorough review of our industry practices and some of the literature out there — both sides. There was a real call for submissions from environmental groups, which — my understanding is — have chosen not to participate. As well, there was a large delegation that came down and reviewed all of our operations out of our Port Hardy area, which I believe you guys are going to be in later on in some of your meetings.

During that time there were also, I believe, eight community members that came down to our sites, that worked on our sites. They're working on every site. Like everyone else, they had really free access to…. You know, when somebody's on the site, you can't hide anything from them. They know how many fish are there. They know what your mortality rate is. They know if there's a disease issue or how much feed you're feeding or if there needs to be medicated feed. Those are things your employees know. We had eight members down there. They were down there for several months working on our farms.

We also had two Kitkatla divers come down and dive all of our sites — these are WCB-certified divers — underneath and adjacent to our pens.

I had a quick story that was really compelling that has stuck with me for a long time. I deal with sustainability of salmon farming kind of on a daily basis and with some of the environmental issues that you guys are reviewing. They finished the dive. They were out with another first nation liaison officer. They did a week of diving, and they went to the final site and chose one of our sites where the operations had been there, in production, the longest and where it was closer to the beach than any other site. They dove there and harvested the food fish that they would normally harvest here within their traditional territory.

After that, a day later, I picked the guys up to get them back onto the ferry to come back up here and I said: "Jeez, how did it go, guys?" And they really said: "You know, we went out, we had a look, we harvested food fish, and we found that everything that was present within our traditional territory was also present adjacent to the farms. In fact, there was more of it. We also found that it was thriving, and it was healthy. There weren't these black lesions that we hear of in the media, and jeez, it tasted just as good as it tastes within our own community."

Quite honestly, in the years I've been doing this, I haven't heard it as succinctly and as purely put as that in terms of this industry being sustainable.

I don't want to get too far into that stuff, except to say that our applications are…. You've heard a little bit about the application process. For Strouts Point, for example, it's over 550 pages long. It took 12 to 14 months to put together. It got so big at one point that I had it legally weighed at 7.7 pounds. Kitkatla members have been on every single survey, and that includes divers, fishermen or ex-fishermen, boat captains, people with knowledge here.

Pan Fish doesn't pretend to know this area. We rely on the traditional knowledge of the Kitkatla Nation to help guide us in our application processes. Once the application is together, that goes through the community, and they sit at the band office, and it gets vetted through them. Once that process is done, the applications then get submitted to government. I can talk a little bit about that later on this afternoon if I get a chance.

The economic opportunity. Salmon farming is a capital-intensive activity, and certainly, we rely on investors to be providing the capital to get up and going, to be doing the things that we do. Fully realized, with our agreement we have ten farms. If you were to look at utilizing that into the future where you had ten farms operating on a rotating basis and you had captured the full potential…. I just want to put out a couple of revenue figures — they're basically costs — that would flow through to the region and a lot through to this community.

I'll start with some of the labour costs. Direct farm labour costs are nearly $4 million operating there.

Freight costs up here are in the order of $7 million. Equipment expenses — these are annual expenses — exceeding $3 million. Miscellaneous operating expenses in excess of $3 million. Contract boat harvesting of greater than $2 million. Process packaging of over $2 million.

You have 17,000 metric tons of product that could be realized from the activities here, and you're looking at over 200 days of processing year-round, with probably 60-plus people in the processing plant. That would, as you heard earlier, not be in the village of Kitkatla, but certainly in Port Ed or Prince Rupert.

Additionally, when you start building economies of scale — I don't know that economies of scale would happen with ten farms — you'd be looking at $21 million into the region with food and feed if there were a feed mill up here. Those are a few figures. They're some rough figures, but in any case, it gives you an idea of the economic activity in the region.

I can see that we need to wrap it up now. I can certainly take any questions, or we can do that this afternoon.

R. Austin (Chair): Thanks, Mark, and thanks for giving your brief. We do have one question here from Dan.

D. Jarvis: I just wonder what stage your project is. What approval do you have? How long would it take for this community to get into the production business?

M. Ayranto: Okay. I guess the second question depends on the first answer. Certainly, we are sitting with — I think, as Gary had mentioned earlier — two locations that had all the approvals in place. We had the third one that has all the approvals with the exception of the provincial aquaculture licence. Since that time — the aquaculture licence is an annually renewed licence — the first two have not been renewed by the provincial government and are currently sitting unrenewed.

Then, on to your second question. If you were to go on a fairly reasonable growth period, the buildup would be five years, and you'd see full production in seven years. You have 20 or 22 months in the sea before you're starting to fully harvest, so you have that two-year delay.

D. Jarvis: But when would you be able to start this project? I appreciate that you've been doing exploratory work up to this point here, but where are you as far as getting…? Say someone came down and said: "Okay, you're approved." How long would it take for this community to get going on their projects?

M. Ayranto: It's really a question to ask the government to some degree on the licences, but I appreciate what you're asking. If we were to move ahead, we will certainly be talking with the nation before making those decisions, but there are two planting windows in every year. There's a fall planting window and a spring planting window. If things work together, you could be targeting one of those two.

M. Ayranto: To be honest, I don't know whether this is the committee work, but we don't have licences right now. We would certainly be going to the community, chief in council, and having those discussions with them. But it would be possible, yes.

R. Austin (Chair): Thanks, Mark. We'll hear the rest of your presentation in Prince Rupert a little bit later. Thank you very much.

J. Mackay: Hi. My name is James Mackay. I'm from the Gits'iis tribe, Ganhada, from Lax Kw'alaams. Did you guys know that they're all against us? Well, I'm not.

I'm one of the students that graduated from the course over at North Island College that put this up through Kim Garety. There were 20 of us who went through the course. This course was pretty tough when we first started, because you have to do lots of studying. The main thing we all had to learn about was water quality and how long you have to fallow a site.

After we went so far in the course, we had to take a practicum. Pan Fish sponsored us to go down to do our practicums in Sayward, to the sites down Chancellor Channel, Hardwicke, all that, outside Port Hardy.

A lot of things we have to know about. How to feed fish. We have to learn that just to…. On-site training. A lot of these guys — I wish some of them were here, and then we could all have sat here. They're in the community, but they didn't come down. They graduated. They are employed. One of them is sitting here too. It would have been nice if they all came up at the same time instead of just one person.

I was all around the sites, and what people talked about around the sites were our natural resources. I'm surprised when people say we don't get them. When we're down there, we go out to get our natural foods around the sites like halibut, sea urchins, scallops, sea prunes. You can get abalone there. You get clams, cockles, mussels. Everything's around the site.

At Bell Island there's a rock only about 50 feet away from the site there, and they're all around there. Same thing is up here. You see the rocks are turning green down there. There's no fish farm here. You don't see very much pollution around here, because we've got to do water sampling, mud sampling every day. When we do water sampling, we've got to do it about four times a day when we feed the fish, before we even feed them.

I couldn't say too much because Mark and Vern were…. They didn't know I had more written down. They spoke up and came up and said mostly all of it. But this course for employment — I sure wish more guys would go out and try to get this training. They're doing a lot of it down at North Island College, and their classes are full. They've got 20 per class down there. They're doing two sessions at a time. That's pointing to the North Island College down there, I be-

We do have some members from the Gitxaala Nation who are working for Stolt and Marine Harvest on the west coast. They're seeing the same things that we go through, the same studies and everything we learn about for fish farming.

Three of us here had medical problems. That's why we're not working. Now I've got approved to go back to work, and I'm still waiting to get called to go back to work again. I've been phoning and phoning down to Pan Fish, and they still haven't got back to me to go back to work again.

Right now it's pretty tough for the guys to go back and forth for work, because the ferries are booked two weeks in advance, so they can't get back and forth now. We've got about three members from here that are booking off because they can't travel back and forth to come see their family. The ferry's too full, and they can't back to work until fall. I'll probably be the same way.

That's all I have to say right now, because these guys came forward, and they said everything that was to be said about fish farming.

R. Austin (Chair): I'd like to call Ken Innes to come up and make a submission, please.

K. Innes: From the bottom of my heart I want to thank each and every one of you.

Welcome to Kitkatla. Gitxaala is the proper pronunciation for our community, like Vern says, the oldest and longest continuously inhabited community on the coast.

My Indian name is [Sm'algyax spoken]. Translated to English, that means Ganhada storm. I am a Ganhada — a Raven. My dad [Sm'algyax spoken] is a Blackfish. I utmostly respect my mother's blood, Ganhada, and I thank my dad, the menfolk, for putting me here. Our people are called [Sm'algyax spoken], which means people of the salt water. I was very fortunate. I was born on a boat at Sunnyside Cannery.

I love the water. I totally love it, whether it's calm…. The rougher it gets, the better for me. I just love it with all my heart. I look at the table here and wonder how many of you are fishermen. I wonder how many of you have gill-netted, seined, worked in canneries or worked on a boat. I wonder how many of you have been involved in fish farming. I wonder if any of you have done sport fishing or just love to fish, whether it's for sport or for food. It means everything to me, and I know it means everything to the people of Gitxaala that sit behind me and those that are not here.

This building that we're sitting in now was built with pure blood, sweat and tears of our grandfathers, the old men of the community. The ladies helped in a tremendous way, just out of love for us yet to come. That is one of the biggest reasons why they built this. It wasn't for themselves — partly for themselves, but they were thinking ahead. They were thinking of me, people my age. They were thinking of my grandkids and theirs. That's why this is here.

I grew up in here, and I can remember places where people loved to sit. I remember Ruben Mason used to always sit there. All along here and all along there, everybody had their own favourite little spot. I want to tell you guys this. I can feel them sitting there right now, listening, watching and hoping that we as Gitxaala people, as their labour of love, have learned from them what they taught us about sustainability.

Sustainability means everything to me. That is taught to me from my ancestors, the people who lived over 5,000 years ago. They prepared this environment. They taught us about how to be sustainable. Are we really practising it today? I don't think so.

I heard a comment from the floor about us not taking any blame for the demise of the wild stock sockeye. I have to say that I know without a doubt that myself and the community did not do enough. As first nations people, we played a role. We didn't do enough to help the wild stock rehabilitate themselves and come back strong as they should have — not only the wild salmon, but the same thing with the abalone and the green sea urchins. All the species that are in danger now — we could have done more. Why didn't we? That's a question we have to ask ourselves.

If we're going to move forward as the Gitxaala Nation, we are going to have to sit down together as one heart, one mind, and think for the betterment of all the resources — the fish mainly. It is the fish that sustained us for thousands and thousands of years.

I do work today with culturally modified trees. We call it CMT work. I do some work there. When I go out there or walk amongst there, I could feel the spirit of the ancestors where they have been doing the bark-stripping — whether it be tapered peel or rectangulars — and why they did it, what trees they use for what purpose. The trees back then were used in everyday life for everything from coffins to cookware to baskets and clothing. I go in there, and I feel their presence. I see and hear their teachings, what they taught me. It's my job today to pass it on to the younger ones.

Sustainability lived in harmony, not only with the fish but with ourselves. This is really key. I see a lot of people today walking their dogs. They treat them like their own kid. Some people don't, and that tells me how you're treating your neighbour, how you're treating the people who live in Gitxaala — yourselves.

There are a lot of powerful lessons here. When I talk about sustainability, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that sustainability and spirituality go hand in hand. You can't separate them. You can't. I think about

This place was where a lot of our fathers, our grandfathers, our uncles…. Everybody stood up here, and they talked. They talked about sustainability. I kind of think they would probably be hurt a bit to see what's going on today. And I think what would hurt them more is to see that we as Gitxaala people couldn't step up on our own two feet, stand up and get the ball rolling and get back and do more.

I heard a lot of talk today about fish farming. I watch everything that's going on. Believe it or not, I used to be the economic development coordinator for this community, but because of my concerns and my questions about fish farming and especially Omega coming in here, I slowly got pushed out. And the final act was that I was made the public works supervisor. That didn't hurt me. That taught me more about care and love for the people of Gitxaala. That's all it comes down to: love.

If you love the fish, you've got to look after them. You don't just use them; you don't just take them and abuse them. You don't take them, catch them and sell them just because you need a little bit of money. There is a lot of poaching happening, even at the local level and all over the place.

I watched Klemtu and how Marine Harvest are trying to help with the wild stock. They're even giving them a sum of money and doing whatever they can to help rehabilitate the wild stock, you know, that they're sort of competing with. You have to do that. I don't know if Pan Fish is going to be doing the same thing for our community, but we need a lot of help. The fish and our resources need a lot of help in a lot of ways.

The sockeye — there were sort of weak attempts to help them. The stream-cleaning program helped a bit, but we needed to do more than that. A lot of the work for stream-cleaning went to Oona River. They did a lot of our territory for us, where we had people sitting here doing nothing who wanted to go out and do manual work and things like that. We couldn't get them.

We need people that have backbone to stand up and truly fight and believe in our people. Our old people, the ancestors, truly believed in it. Look at what they wrote up there: in God we trust. Every single one of those people believed in God. They trusted God. That's why we have what little we have right now. But we ourselves can make the difference. We have to stand up and do what we can to help and to heal all living things. That's the bottom line.

As a first nations person, for anybody, our main job here on this Earth is to help and to heal all living things. That includes all of this. When any species or fish is in jeopardy, we have to focus our attention to that species and help it any way we can. Whether it be sockeye, abalone, whatever little we have right now, we have to give it our attention, and especially ourselves as human beings. Have a look at this community and what's happening to it. I hear a lot of talk about how fish farming is going to change this community. I don't see it, to tell you the truth. I really don't.

I could say a lot more, but I will limit what I say. Because when the time comes, when band council, along with Pan Fish and the community get together again on so-said meetings, I will stand up. I have a lot to say, and I have a lot of input. I want to contribute whatever I can in a way that we can have sustainable fish.

There are ways and means in today's age, with technology, computers, all the experts out there and everything, that we could change things. Why are we allowing ourselves to get stuck in one place, put all our eggs in one basket and hope that fish farming is the answer? I don't see it that way.

I heard talk about a lot of numbers about fish farming. We were allowed to look at that contract for just a few hours when it first came out. Even today I can't get a copy of that contract. I know there have been updates and changes made to it but as a resident of Gitxaala, I have absolutely no access to it.

In the few hours that we were allowed to look at it, I looked at it and I saw a lot of doubletalk. You had to be a lawyer to understand what the whole document was saying. It would say one thing but a few pages later, it would change the same thing again.

I can't sit here and give you any kind of informed decision about the document relating to Gitxaala and Pan Fish's relationship, because I haven't been allowed an opportunity to hear honest opinion from neutral parties about this thing. We're right in the middle of it.

I hear talk about the elders, house leaders and council. There's no doubt in mind that council fully supports fish farming, because they were involved right off the bat. But one thing I see is that only certain house leaders and elders agree to it. You have a look at that list. You give me that list, and I want to tell you who the real house leaders in there are. That goes in part with the protocol and process of Gitxaala's traditional way. We have protocol. We have a system. We have people in place that are next in line for names.

It may sound and seem like a complex process, but it's not. It's part of our ayaawx and a big part of our adawx. One is the law that we've had in place before contact. Today it's still there but not as effective as before. The law of the Gitxaala people is in place. We had meetings in the past where we continually talked about the ayaawx and the adawx. One is the law, and one is the stories that validate and support the laws.

We talked about Gitxaala being here for thousands of years. Some even say up to 15,000 years that we've been here. A lot of our people readily embraced Christianity. Christianity was not a part of our former upbringing. It just came in recently with the Europeans coming over here. That's when we found out and learned about Christianity. It is imposed on us. Our own true way of practising our religion is different. A lot of us today still go with it, but at the same time Christianity is used by a lot of our people. I have absolutely nothing against Christianity or any form of religion on this Earth. It does good for a lot of people.

The other thing is Anger Island. You heard me say when I introduced myself that I am Raven. I follow my

mother's bloodline. My house leaders are Ravens. I have a house chief who is a Raven. We have territory that belongs to Ravens. Any business opportunity or anything that happens in Raven territory, we have to be consulted.

Band council cannot turn around and say: "Okay, we're going to put a fish farm in Raven territory because we think the water's good there." Every single Raven, the Raven tribe and the Raven house that has a name to their property all have to agree. The reason I found that out…. It is part of our teaching, but when we try to put it into a fact….

We tried abalone rehabilitation quite a few years ago. We chose a site down in the bottom, in Aristazabal there, Ethelda Bay. We chose our site because it is good. We went down, and we talked to the house leader at the time. He said no. He had to run that proposal by his house, whatever the size of his house is. He is accountable to them. He took it to them, and they said no. We couldn't go there. We had to choose another site, so we chose to go a different route and send our stuff down to Vancouver Island.

That abalone at that time came very close to succeeding — very close to succeeding. Just a few things that didn't work out, and some of the people who had the power to make decisions changed that decision, so that went by the wayside.

I heard speakers talking about effects. There was a man we had here who did a lot of work with the treaty. His name is Wilfred Jackson. He thoroughly understood, as he was taught from the old people, the migratory routes of the fish. He could tell you that they leave…. Let's say that something happened in Anger Island. They would leave there, and they would go up towards Alaska, and they would go out. It would take so many years, and they would come by and touch the Queen Charlotte Islands, and come in and then go back where they came from. I'm pretty sure that biologists and scientists can validate that by studies, and I'm pretty sure a lot of you ex-fishermen know exactly what I'm talking about when we talk about migratory routes of any species.

What would happen if Anger Island had ten pens of water and something catastrophic happened, if they were released and they took a migratory route? They don't have a migratory route in the first place, because they're a foreign species. But if they found their way into rivers, estuaries, there could possibly be some damaging effects.

I heard a report about Klemtu. How long have they been going at it now? It's a very few years. You're not going to find any negative impact for the next ten, 20 years after it has been in the water. It is going to take longer than that. Everybody knows that. In my lifetime I probably won't get to see the devastation that I'm hoping does not happen. Maybe my kids or my grandkids will, but I don't want to take that chance.

Talk about the ripple effect. If anything went wrong with Gitxaala's proposal, the Skeena River would be affected. The fish are going to go up there. It's not going to stop at the Skeena. It's going to go all the way upriver, all the way up past all the villages that depend on the sockeye, the fish. Babine Lake — they'll go up there and settle up there. You come down to Douglas Channel — farther. You talk about ripple effect? There are going to be a lot of mad Indians out there, because we could possibly destroy their way of life.

We have to be very careful. These are the kinds of concerns that we talked about in the first public meetings, but a lot of our concerns went into deaf ears. They went into deaf ears. I'm not afraid to sit here and say this and tell you the truth, because I was there. I was there. Any time anybody wants to talk to me more about it, just phone me. I have absolutely nothing to hide. I'm speaking from my heart. I'm speaking for the old people, all the ancestors who are sitting here, watching and listening. They want the truth to be known.

If we are going to do sustainable aquaculture, then let's all be on the same page and all work together at the same level. No bullshitting. No lying. No dishonesty. Just straight from the heart, and do what's going to be best for not only ourselves, but also for the fish.

We've got to think about our kids. We've got to think about our grandkids. We've got to think about 100 years from now. We've got to think about 1,000 years from now — the same way our ancestors did to me, to Clifford, to all of us that are here. That's why we're here right now.

The one thing, when there are two sites…. We had a biologist here before that had concerns about fish farming. She found some of the sites they were looking at had green sea urchins and other resources that are weak.

I don't know how many of you know about green sea urchins. They're a smaller version of the sea urchin. We call them aswit. They're a delicacy amongst our people. They're delicious. They're sweet. Like the abalone, they're really low. They need a lot of help. Right now they're fighting a losing battle.

The other thing is that we don't have any kind of monitoring program from the community level to keep an eye on the urchin divers when they come here. You all heard the news about the boats that got about 11,000 pounds. They were caught with a whole pile of abalone. A lot of abalone is taken out of Gitxaala territory.

We have a huge territory — the west coast of Banks, all the way up inside of Porcher and all the way down towards Aristazabal — and we have absolutely no monitoring program to keep an eye on endangered species. We have no program to keep an eye….

The other day I saw about 12 red cedars cut down between Alpha Bay and Swede Bay, only about ten or 15 miles from here. I don't know who to phone. I talked to some of our leaders here, but nobody's acting. I guess I might have to go look after it myself or something like that. I don't know.

I figured there should have been a way that…. We should have had something to look after it. Maybe give me a phone number. I tried to phone enforcement. I tried to phone Forests. I don't know who to talk to, but I'll keep on trying. I'm curious.

I don't want to spend too much time on fish farming because the time will come again when we are going to have to have an update about fish farming. I heard a lot of numbers thrown out about the number of people that are trained.

At the same time, there are a lot of guys — quite a few…. I wish I could give you the numbers. I'll say, safely, that there are anywhere from six to eight people, maybe more, that were trained and worked with fish farming and that were either fired or quit. First, they didn't know how to manage the little bit of money they got. A lot of them went on drunken sprees. We had some near fatalities down in Port Hardy, where some of our workers fell over. We were just lucky to have a friend close by to rescue them.

They need to be taught money management. A lot of things need to go with this. There are a lot of things. I think the community of Gitxaala and council have to sit down and talk. I hope that it comes at a time….

R. Austin (Chair): Noting the time, I think we should just move on, unless anybody has a very important question. No? Okay.

M. Hill: I don't understand your procedure here. I'm sorry. I had no notification. I got pulled away from my work and a grieving family this morning.

I'm just going to go along the lines of the history of the beginnings of the fish farm here. I understand that this is a staged group, and we don't entirely get the right — what do you call it? — equal opportunity, I guess you would say.

I was the chief councillor of this community when we were approached. I have to go back a lot further than that, to about 20 years prior to that, when fish farming first came to the northwest and Kitkatla was approached by many, many individuals. We never saw any direct benefits for Kitkatla on any of the proposals that came our way.

Then we had visits from a couple of guys, one from Norway and one from Iceland. They had a very interesting proposal. They wanted to build a ship similar to those container ships that bring over junk, I guess, to our country and set up a farm system on there. It was going to be automated — everything by computer and everything monitored from Norway. If there was going to be anything happening, any incidents on the farm, they'd send over their experts. That was the proposal. It was a huge, multi-million-dollar proposal.

When we asked what type of employment opportunities we would have, there were none because everything was so technical and automated. They were going to give some token positions, like all the other companies do, but it wasn't good enough for us, so we asked that they not enter our territory until they were prepared to cooperate and start dealing with our people on the front page of everything.

A lot of what I heard kind of shocked me, because when Omega Salmon came to the area, they informed us through a mutual friend of what was going on, on northern Vancouver Island and how the first nations band there had taken advantage of an opportunity presented to them. We showed some interest. But when they came up, I told them that they had to go to the public to do a presentation, which they did.

They did some PowerPoint presentations. There were a lot of people there. The place was full. William Sound memorial gym was full, and people participated. That's why I'm shocked to hear what I just heard.

A lot of people participated. The gentleman just prior to me here was the only one who spoke against it in the first meeting, and he was employed by the band council. We overlooked that situation. We felt that he had a right to express his views, and we respected his views.

After the presentation was over, more information was given out. Whatever people needed, they got.

The next step was to bring band council down to Port Hardy and different areas — to different hatcheries and so on, down to the Vancouver Island area — and see first hand what the whole process entails. And we did. We saw what we thought was a good opportunity. I still think it is.

We said, "Well, we need some more public input," so we had some more public meetings. By then some environmentalists had got hold of some individual people here and gave them their side of the story. At the next public meeting there was a lot more speaking out against it but still a very high percentage for. I think that at the third public meeting we were still in the 70 percent positive — for.

Along those lines we said: "Okay, we'll have to go to the hereditary leaders." I didn't want to see us fall through the cracks anywhere along the line. The house leaders and the chiefs that signed the agreement…. I'm sure you have a copy of the agreement. As far as I know, none of those people are phonies.

I put up a feast out here. I've met all the requirements of being a house leader, and the people that are chiefs have done their feasting and have fulfilled their duties and requirements in meeting the obligations of taking their places in our community.

You can't sneak by the public. There's nothing you can do to declare yourself a chief. There have been some that have tried and are trying, but you've got to go through the process, and that's public feasting. A huge amount of money is expended in order to feast properly and follow the ayaawx, the laws of the land, before you take your place.

That is done regularly here. There's feasting coming up in the very near future. More names will be taken, and new positions will be filled. It's a requirement of our culture. So there are no shortcuts anywhere. The list that you have…. We understand that everybody fulfilled their duties in taking their place at the hereditary table.

Anyway, we got them down. There were three or four of them who were against. We know that on the trip down on the ferry to Port Hardy they were confused. People were giving them information, and some of their house members were saying: "No, we're not interested." That was fine. We never twisted anybody's arm. We asked that they come down and see first hand what we had witnessed, and so they came.

After the second day there were meetings, debriefings, every night after tours were taken, and decisions were made in the evenings. If there were more questions asked, more information needed, they were given it. At the end of the day, we said: "We've had three public meetings in Kitkatla very strongly in favour. The band council has put all this together. What is your desire? We have things ready for you if you want to go ahead and proceed and make an agreement." They had a caucus and discussions, and finally, they said yes.

As each individual spoke…. I knew there were still a couple that had not really quite made up their minds until they heard everybody speak, and they got up and spoke in favour of it.

The documents were brought out, and our hereditary chief, Sm'ooygit Hale, was there. He was the first to sign. I hear his words very clearly, even today, in the meetings that he attended: "We have nothing better being offered to us anywhere. Let's give it a try."

On the bottom line of the agreement we ensured that if anything detrimental was going to happen to any environment or property, we had the right to shut down the whole operation. That's because of our hereditary chief's remarks that if it doesn't work out, we have to shut it down. The bottom line on the agreement is that if it doesn't look favourable, we'll shut it down.

I followed the discussions and the pros and cons of fish farming a lot. I haven't really heard any concrete, foolproof evidence of what we're hearing. The scientists are still using their "maybes" and "what ifs." They're not saying: "This is the way it is." There are things happening in the area, but they cannot really pin down what is causing it.

For me, in my own assessment up in this area…. There haven't been fish farms since the '70s, I guess. There was an effort made, but the devastation of the salmon in our area, the demise of the salmon, is overwhelming. It's happening, and when you look at what's contributing to this, you look at the world situation. The pollution the world is putting into the ocean doesn't have to be done here in our country. It could be done somewhere else, and it comes to our area. You see the foreign fish showing up in our area from other parts of the world. That's never been here over the history of Kitkatla. They're surfacing here.

Where is it coming from, and why is it here? These are valid questions. What other pollution is coming up into our area? If these fish are coming up, what other contributing factors are happening in the ocean that are causing the demise of the salmon?

How much study has been done in the Skeena River area to see what pollutants are actually affecting the salmon? When you look at the Skeena River and the size of it, the length of the highway that travels alongside it, what is contributing from the highway into the river system? It's overwhelming.

When you think of the logging that is going on up in that area — huge, huge logging practices, and only recently has the government sort of put down some regulations that will control those bad logging practices that are going on — how much of that is contributing to the demise of the salmon?

The mining activities that are going on up there. Right now there's a big promotion on mining up there — huge. They haven't cleaned up the last mess that's been going on up there over the years, and here there's a big promotion going on. The NDP party — front page all the time — big supporters.

I mean, let's be real about this whole thing. How much more are we going to contribute to the Skeena River system, where garbage is accumulating and really, really having a serious effect on the salmon in that river? It's overwhelming when you sit down and look closely at exactly what's going on. How much raw sewage is going into the Skeena River? Raw sewage — how much? It's overwhelming. You just look at the population — how many communities along the Skeena River — and you'll be overcome. We should be the ones complaining out here because of all the pollution coming down from the river. Yet they're complaining about us.

I just feel sad about it. I feel sad because our ayaawx, all the first nations ayaawx, where there's a lot of respect shown one to the other…. You know, we had a meeting the other day, and an elder was speaking about not speaking into a house, not telling the story of another house. It's the same way among first nations over the years.

I cannot go up the Skeena River and tell those people how to live — what to harvest and what not to harvest, what to log and what not to log, what to mine and what not to mine. "Don't put your garbage in the Skeena River." I can't tell them that. That's their territory; that's their environment. They live there, and it's up to them to look after it.

Our intention is to do the same here. My understanding is that we're going along the same lines of what the agreement was signed with, and that if there's any indication of any harm being done to the environment, it'll be shut down. That is the agreement we stand on. The agreement is readily available to anybody. It's never been hidden. The signatures are there. I'm hoping you all have a copy of it and have had a look at it.

This community has the richest area on the coast. Gitxaala Nation owns over 200 coastline miles, and we're not going inland. Just the coastal mileage is over 200 miles of coastline for this nation. We were a huge nation at one time.

When the Europeans landed on this land, they brought a lot of disease, and they're still doing it today. So the number of our people dwindled because of the diseases that came over, but we still own that 200-mile coastline. We still utilize that territory.

Our people, the clans or tribes that are stewards of whatever area along the coastline, still utilize it. I still have the privilege of going out to different parts of this territory and getting my food when I'm able to. I haven't been able to for the last three years because of a sickness that I have and some serious surgery, but I intend on going out again and practising my rights on our land.

That's what it boils down to: my own rights to my territory. I respect the rights of the other people in their territory. What they pursue is for their benefit, and I wish them the best in whatever they do. I felt bad when we tried to go and speak at the presentation of Friends of Wild Salmon in Terrace, when they pulled together some first nations. I feel sad when I see a whole bunch of foreigners come into our territory and start driving wedges and dividing our people. It's sad when that happens in this country. We try to put on a good face around the world to say that we're a humanitarian nation and we want to help people that are devastated around the world. But the real practice of the leadership is driving wedges among our own people here — dividing, harming and destroying people.

I'm a victim of a residential school, and I see the devastation in a lot of victims of residential schools. Many of them commit suicide. Many of them fall into the wrong thing and harm themselves. Where does that come from? The leadership, the government — how they handle people. It's the same way in what we're witnessing today. The exact practice of what's been going on all these years is happening right here and now, and it's really sad.

The message should be more clear to the United Nations, to the world community, that Canada is not a humanitarian nation. It's not. The record speaks for itself. All we have to do is bring it out and show the world just how things are and how we're treated. Everything is tried to be legitimized one way or the other. When you hit a stone wall, you find another avenue or look for another crack. How can we destroy these people? That's what's going on.

That's part of my history here in this community and what I know about fish farm development. We looked at it for well over 25 years before we made a move. We didn't just walk in the door and say: "Yes, we're going to do it." We looked very closely. We looked long and hard, and we consulted. We consulted the proper people.

It's up to me as a house leader to contact my own house membership to ensure that they get the right information. Every house leader and hereditary leader on the list that signed has that same obligation. A lot of people can't come to all the public meetings, but they have that avenue of communication through the house system. Nobody is denied anything. No information is denied at any time anywhere.

R. Austin (Chair): Thanks, Matt, for sharing your experiences. Do members have any questions?

M. Hill: I'm in favour of it. Like I say, the bottom line is that if it's healthy…. If it shows signs of not being productive, then better shut it down very quickly.

S. Simpson: Thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to check with the Chair or the Clerk. I don't believe that we actually have seen that agreement, have we? If not, would it be possible?

R. Austin (Chair): No, we've never seen the agreement. Is it something that…?

M. Ridsdale: Hello, everybody. My name is Mike Ridsdale. I am the fisheries manager here for the Gitxaala Nation. I'm also their marine biologist. I've looked at a lot of the paperwork that they did on those sites that were approved. Seated right behind me is the former DFO habitat manager that approved those sites.

If you look behind me, when this first process that you started here on this committee…. When you sat down and the people that were sitting behind you…. I look around and there are at least six scientific minds that are sitting in the community now that are working on different projects within the community and have a vested interest here. For me that's a fantastic thing. That's like 1/10 of the people that are in this meeting right now.

You also mentioned stuff about the oil and gas, the previous finfish farms, Hartley Bay, Gitxaala Nation, Hanging Lake project, where it would be bringing more salmon into the community and trying to get more vested interest in aquaculture in the community. For me, what I see on those sites…. I did the research on them, and I looked at them and saw that they did their due diligence on it and made sure it was acquired.

I just have one question for the committee. Have you looked into the previous farms that were running within Prince Rupert district itself? There was one that was set up in Tuck Inlet, and there was another one that was set up in Morris Bay. Do you have that information about those farms that were previously set up when it was okay?

M. Ridsdale: That's the kind of interest that we have here. We want to know what other parties are seeking approval through the same process of aquaculture. If we're going through a forensic audit, more or less, to get our farms up and running, what kind of interest did you guys have in these previous farms that

were okayed in the past and in the farms that will maybe be coming into play after we're approved? Will they go through the same process that we are going through? I'd like to see that.

When you mention about what kind of employment these farms would bring to the community, I'm seeing that through the aquaculture we have, both the finfish and shellfish, a lot of the equipment would be worked on as dual purpose, where we can use the transportation vessel to bring our shellfish and other vested aquaculture farms into play so that they won't be just used on one basis; they'll be used on a multifaceted basis.

I'm also seeing that scientific improvements are coming. Like I mentioned, we have six scientific minds behind me here, but we're also looking at increasing that capacity under the GEM project, which is the Gitxaala environmental monitoring program. That will bring more science in here. With that we have a better understanding of our territory and how we can improve it a lot. Bringing those kinds of scientific minds will increase the power that we have on increasing the wild salmon stocks within our territory, helping out our streams that we have within the territory and, also, improving the economy here in the community by having more people going to school and getting these scientific degrees.

For my part, I'm looking at improving the science in the community, trying to get that interest up here, so that we have people in place when those farms are approved, community members with a great scientific background to step in and say: "You know what? This is what you need to do, this is what you can do, and this is how to improve it." That's what I'm looking at.

When you guys sat down at first, I was recognizing that everybody was writing. Then, when you asked for the speakers to come up, there wasn't that much writing; it's a lot of sitting back and taking in the questions.

I also have to apologize to the community here that although you've given three hours for this panel to give their voices and get some of the concerns over, you're going to Prince Rupert, and you're going to have five hours there compared to what you have here. We're a vested community as to what's going on. I have to apologize to them for that.

I was the one who was first put in contact with the people that made the agenda back in November. I had a letter that came through Skeena Fisheries Commission saying: "Here's the agenda, and here's what's going on." So back then I realized that you guys were coming to Gitxaala Nation, but there was nobody that gave the phone call to the nation until last month, stating: "We're coming there. We apologize for not sending this information out to you. Can we still come?"

For that, I basically said no, because you guys didn't ask anybody here. You can't ask the fisheries department for that; you have to ask the community, the council and the hereditary leaders if it's okay. Then I put you in touch with Clifford White. I have to apologize to you that I, first off, said no.

Once you do your background on previous fish farms, I'd like to see what your information is on those past operations that happened outside of Prince Rupert. One, I think, was first set up in Dundas Island, and it didn't quite work out there. It wasn't working, so they moved it into Tuck Inlet. The second one is the one that was already running up in Morris Bay. These sites are a lot closer than we are. They are between the headwaters of the Nass and the Skeena watershed. The farms that are proposed on this one are on the outside.

When you mention about a first nation's input towards territorial rights and first nations governance, I reiterate what Matt Hill said. We don't involve ourselves with other governance. It's up to them how they do their government-to-government talks, whereas when you come here, you've already invested time at these other first nations communities, and now you finally come down to where we are talking about investing on some farms down here.

We don't condone other first nations coming in to talk about government-to-government talks here. We don't condone ourselves to go up there and talk about their oil and gas and how they should set that up. We don't tell them how they should do their forestry, which impacts greatly on all of the estuaries.

If you put in one monoculture of trees, you're changing the chemical makeup of the soil of that region. Instead of having a whole diversity of different chemicals coming off a variety of trees, you have one monoculture, which is giving off one significant chemical change. So the fish that are leaving come back in four years, and the chemical makeup of their headwater has changed.

Just on the science end you're changing the chemical makeup of streams. We're not trying to tell them how to look after those interests as well. The Gitxaala environmental monitoring project that's coming into play soon — I'm really happy to see that. I've looked at the project and at how they're setting it up. I see that they're increasing the aspect of science into the region.

For me that's a great plus. As one or two people within our fisheries department that are looking after every aspect as to how to run different fisheries and how to look after the environment and the monitoring of that and doing studies…. We're just two people, whereas DFO has a whole department. So getting more scientific minds in here and doing these studies is a plus for Gitxaala Nation so that we can, more or less, look after our marine resources here.

Those are the questions that I put for you. Basically, come back to me, come back to Gitxaala Nation, and tell us what you know about those previous farms and how they're approved and what magnitude of audit they went through before you come here and basically tell us how we should do ours. I have to apologize for that. I'm saying it, but I do feel strongly that these ones should have been investigated by the panel before you came here.

D. Jarvis: Thank you for coming. I don't think that our mandate here is to tell you what to do. We're just here to find out whether you approve of it or disapprove and how you're going to go about it.

We're here strictly on an exploratory basis. We will report back to the minister, and discussions will come from that. Ostensibly, that's what we're doing here. We're not trying to tell you what to do.

M. Ridsdale: Yes, but also on the same point is the rigorous audit that Gitxaala is going through under all the investigations. They're answering. They're making themselves open.

To date, I'm not sure if any of those environmental groups have really come out. The doors have always been open, but personally, I haven't seen any come out. And I'd welcome it. I'd sit down and talk to them as well.

I mean, I took time out of my day to make it here. So I think that's a plus for the Gitxaala Nation, to take me away from my regular job so that I could speak out my point of view for here.

R. Cantelon (Deputy Chair): Just one point. All proceedings that are being recorded are available on the website. So if you want to hear what other people have said or presented to us, it's all public information.

R. Austin (Chair): The final presenter today is Raymond McKay. If Raymond would like to come up and make a submission.

R. McKay: Hello, my name is Raymond McKay. My Indian name is [Sm'algyax spoken], which means new wings. I'm an Eagle. About ten, 20 years from now, that name won't mean much.

If this moves through, I'm not for or against it. When this issue first came up, I was against it. And when this issue first came up, as I spoke about it, my family, my kids were threatened by band council members.

Cliff, you weren't here at the time. There'll come a time when I'll name these people.

I grew up on both sides of the fishing industry as a deckhand, as a cannery worker. I grew up in the logging industry on both sides.

That was our bread and butter on the coast. Gary knows this. I grew up as a longshoreman. I grew up as a logger. I was self-taught. I followed in my dad's footsteps. I followed in my grandparents' footsteps.

I'm not a well-educated man. I just recently learned about computers — a couple of months ago. You see how far back I am compared to the teenagers. I learned from my own son.

I'm not much of a person on speaking quietly. Cliff knows what kind of person I am. You get in my face, and I'll get in your face. That's the kind of person I am. I speak from the heart.

I went up the Nass with my grandparents, went up the Skeena with my grandparents, went up there with my dad, went out to Dundas Island, went down Vancouver Island with them, travelled the whole coast with them, so I know what I'm talking about — growing up.

When this Pan Fish first came around last year, I asked the question to one of them who was here at the time: is there going to be a cannery put up in the village, here? They boldly stated, said: "No. There will be no cannery. It's not in the works." So there are only a few people benefiting from this industry.

When I worked in a cannery over in Port Simpson they only had one shift over there at the time, making $9 an hour for 18, 19½ hours straight each day, six to nine months out of the year, as you see where I come from. I grew up working.

Last five, ten years I've had to rely on welfare because there's nothing there anymore. I got out of the industry. You know how much they get a month on welfare? There are five of us in my family; $462 a month. I had to stoop that low, yet I worked all my life with my dad. God rest his soul now. He was a hard worker.

I don't know if you guys remember that sawmill out at Georgetown. I think Gary is probably the only one that would know this place. People in Lax Kw'alaams, when they first started going to school over there…. My friends didn't have records for me until I was in grade two going to school. When I finished school, I finished in grade 11. I didn't graduate.

A lot of people did finger-pointing out here about this industry that's coming, and it's still going on. How many of you guys on this table here know where the glory hole is out at Dundas, know where Shag Rock is out at the Queen Charlottes, know where Pine Island is down on Vancouver Island? Those are major passages for the fishing industry, boat owners, seine boats. How many of you know how to work on LORANs? You see, I know what I'm talking about. I don't b.s. when I say something. It comes from here.

I'm going to be a grandfather pretty soon. You see what I'm facing. I've got a lot of catching up to do. Just found out a couple of months ago that my oldest daughter…. She grew up in the school system. She's educated. She went to one year of college right in Northwest Community College in Rupert. Got another son that's on the way.

I taught three of my sons. One knows how to fish. One knows how to hunt. Taught them since they were small what I was taught. I learned from elders that way, and I teach my kids that. You know the biggest problem I have now? I don't have a motor to go away, to go out there, what I'm used to doing. Now I'm hearing it from my mother-in-law. A couple of weeks ago she almost sold her seaweed choppers, because no seaweed was coming in the house for her. I used to provide for two families. Now I can't even do that. When I try to ask somebody to borrow their motor out here, they won't lend it because they cherish what they have — what's left. We don't have much out here.

Cliff, you said 80 percent of the community. You take a quick look and do your homework; 95 percent of the community is on welfare here. I came here to make

a bold statement. I didn't come here to take any questions or any answers from anybody. I want to tell you guys what it's like to live here, what it's like to live on the coast.

A lot of you guys can afford to go to a restaurant, can afford to buy cars, can afford to go to movies. The small communities on the coast here — how do you think we survive out there? That's how it is for us. You guys can get up and travel any time you want. When I try to make arrangements for my kids to go to Rupert, I have to save up for about five to six months on welfare to try to get them all to Rupert. If you guys ever lived here or lived in any small community, you guys would know what I'm talking about, what the costs are. It's very expensive just to get up and travel somewhere. You guys can afford to go to the bank; we can't, because we've got stumbling blocks.

Before we adjourn, I would like to personally thank Chief White, the band council and the members of Kitkatla for making us welcome here and allowing us to continue with this hearing today.

C. White: Just before we close, if I can ask Rufus if he can honour us with a closing prayer.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

	1)	Chief Clifford White
	2)	Teresa Ryan
	3)	Rev. Vern Jackson
	4)	Mark Ayranto
	5)	Ken Innes
	6)	James Mackay
	7)	Matt Hill
	8)	Mike Ridsdale
	9)	Raymond McKay

Committee Staff:	Brant Felker (Committee Research Analyst)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON
SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE