March 15, 2001
Campbell’s referendum proposal - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
Moe Sihota announced on Tuesday that after 15 years as the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, he is stepping back from politics and that he won’t seek that seat in the upcoming provincial election. Judging from the press, as despised and colourful as he was, Mr. Sihota will be missed for a number of reason. Mike Smyth will miss, what he affectionately calls, Moe Moments. Vaughn Palmer in the Sun said he won’t do away with the boxes of files he’s kept on thrice-dumped from cabinet NDPer. Even Rafe Mair, had a pleasant send-off for Sihota on his program on Tuesday. I interviewed Mr. Sihota at last year’s NDP convention. At the time he was the minister responsible for the public service and had backed Gordon Wilson. We chatted and he was neither warm, nor did he appear to have his attention with me. The photograph that was taken has him looking remote. Funny from a guy who loved publicity so. Then again it was just me.
VANCOUVER -- Last week, BC Liberal leader Gordon Campbell addressed the Summit of First Nations, which was meeting on the North Shore. With Mr. Campbell's opposition against the Nisga'a Treaty, his appearance was seen as progressive, if not courageous. During his speech, Mr. Campbell stated that within one year of assuming office, there would be a province-wide referendum on the state of Native treaty negotiations in British Columbia.
During the debate over Nisga'a many had called for a referendum. Gordon Campbell, for one, felt that mere British Columbians should have a say in the matter. At the time, I agreed that a referendum was needed, but now I revisit my assessment of that, hereby establishing a position on what the Liberal leader now proposes.
In retrospect, a referendum on Nisga'a would not have been practical. The mere debate of whether the result would be binding would be oft debated, if not cumbersome. Secondly, I do not see what a referendum would accomplish. I'm sure that there are many people opposed to the Nisga'a Treaty for a whole gamut of reasons. There are some in BC who disagree, that Natives should receive compensation at all. There are those (like me) who agree that settlements are necessary, but that this particular treaty would be a dangerous precedent, as it would be used as a template for all future negotiations. I am resolved that if a referendum were held the result would not be clear. If it was, in fact, defeated this would set the whole treaty process back, stifling an already cumbersome and timely process.
Mr. Campbell's promise of a referendum I balk at. What question or questions could possibly be posed? The Nisga'a Treaty is done and finished with. It's been given Royal Assent (in both Victoria and Ottawa) and to undo that would be a mess, if not breeding much hostility for all parties involved. (Constitutionally, I think it would be impossible.) Referenda are totally democratic, but the significant issue of dealing with treaty settlement proves utterly absurd to whittle down to a mere yes/no question.
Gordon Campbell has essentially created an issue for the upcoming election campaign. Someone in his position in the polls, should heed the example of Jean Chrétien. When the government is in the process of self-destruction, the opposition should leave them to their own devices. The current Prime Minister became beneficiary of such luck in 1993 with the Tories self-destruction. As the House is in session, the NDP should certainly capitalise on the situation Mr. Campbell has set forth.
Mr. Campbell has stated that he will direct any such formulation of the question(s) to be put to the people of BC, to an all-party committee of the House and people representing the First Nations. Oh so, politically correct, but the mere formulation of such a question would not be expedient and would certainly fracture debate in the province. Should he then find himself in a deadlock, Mr. Campbell's hand may be forced in drawing up his own question – thus making him no different from the top-down governance of his own predecessors in the Premier's chair. Gordon Campbell has created a land mine that could have been avoided. The future repercussions are many, if Mr. Campbell can not defuse the situation now.
The calls for a referendum on Nisga'a in 1998 and the feelings for a referendum now are not meant to set the treaty process back. (Mr. Campbell is merely suffering from what most politicians get from time to time – political misstepping.) I agree with Mr. Campbell that they must be advanced, however, a referendum, as the one that the Liberal leader proposes won't do that. Rather, a referendum on Native issues would be a colossus setback. It must be stated that Gordon Campbell and the Liberals are not anti-Native, nor are people like Rafe Mair and Gordon Gibson racist for wanting a fair and just debate. Natives must be compensated in an honourable and prudent way. This malcontent with the status quo is rooted in the ineptitude of the New Democratic government, namely Glen Clark. Former premier Clark felt no conviction to work on treaty settlement when the Socreds were in power and he on the opposition side. Only when there looked to be political points scored did Clark fast track the process. Nisga'a was crammed down the throats of the Legislature and Clark had thought it as a tall legacy. In the grand scheme of things, the NDP's record of a government notwithstanding, the Nisga'a Treaty and the state of aboriginal treaty settlement, leaves much more to be desired.
Nothing have I to propose, but the hope that the Campbell Liberals will do better. Gordon Campbell and his talk of a referendum prove, however that they are not on the right track thus far.
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .