Monday, December 17, 2001
The absurdity of democracy - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- A couple of Friday’s ago, the BC Liberal’s aboriginal affairs committee released a long awaited report on the proposed referendum on Native land claims in British Columbia. The new BC Liberal government of Gordon Campbell promised that once in office, a referendum would be held on Native issues in BC. After the cramming through of the landmark Nisga’a Treaty by the previous New Democratic government, the Liberals promised that a referendum would take place, so as to empower the government with a mandate to negotiate.
British Columbia’s history has been peppered with much consternation between British Columbia’s Native Indians and the government. Actually, British Columbia hadn’t recognised Indian title until the NDP formed government in 1991. The Nisga’a Treaty gave land and the right of self-government to the Nisga’a nation in the north-western part of the province. However, some constitutional noodle heads have claimed that it creates a fourth level of government, thus would be in contravention of some constitutional legalese. Gordon Campbell, the current Premier, when he was in opposition, attempted to challenge the constitutionality of Nisga’a in court, but soon after forming the government, gutted those plans.
In opposition, Mr. Campbell, his current Attorney General Geoff Plant and Minister of Forests Mike De Jong launched a court challenge to Nisga’a under the auspices of the BC Liberal Party. However, once they formed government Mr. Campbell said that now being the government prevented him from participating in a court challenge that essentially was against himself. But what isn’t being brought up, which Mr. Campbell carefully evaded when he was on Rafe Mair a while back, is the fact the courts allow for the substitution of challengers. And if the original challenge was fronted by the BC Liberal Party, they would have done just that. I have the feeling, Mr. Campbell’s vociferous criticism towards the principles of the Nisga’a Treaty in opposition were for political points, and nothing else.
When the Campbell Liberals spoke of holding a referendum one year after forming government, there was talk before and during last May’s election campaign that a referendum would be divisive and pointless. It would be divisive, as how possibly could complex political and social issues be reduced to mere a yes or no question. More horrific, how could complex political and social issues be reduced -- as the committee has now proposed -- to a series of questions. John Les, the backbench committee chair, released 16 questions that are as Vancouver Sun columnist Vaughn Palmer described as “innocuous to the point of absurdity” (“What controversies lurk in 16 questions?” The Vancouver Sun. December 1, 2001.)
16 questions is rather excessive. Turnout would not go over 40% and that’s being extremely optimistic. The questions on the ballot are preceded by a “Vision” statement which states that the Province and Feds and Aboriginal governments are in negotiations “to reconcile Crown title and claims of Aboriginal title.” After the requisite ‘Whereas,’ follows a 6 paragraph pre-question that says the referendum is one-time only and that the object of the matter is “to receive public endorsement of the principles to revitalise the process of negotiating treaties” and to achieve a “clear” definition of Aboriginal peoples’ relationship under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The 16 questions are divided into four sections: Openness, Property and Interest Issues, Aboriginal Governance and Settlement. All are Yes or No questions. Les has said the questions are designed for all British Columbians to say Yes.
Openness: 1. Treaties should be negotiated in as transparent a manner as possible. 2. Treaty negotiation should be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests. 3. Local government participation in the treaty process is guaranteed.
I agree with all three. If you say No to the first, that means that you want treaties to be negotiated in secret and the ramifications of those treaties to be unknown to you, the taxpayer; he who will foot the bill.
Property and Interest Issues: 4. Private property is not negotiable unless there is a willing seller and a willing buyer. 5. Continued access to hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed for al British Columbians. 6. The Province will maintain parks and protected areas for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. 7. All terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences will be honoured. 8. Fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests will be assured.
For the fourth and eighth question, there could be a hiccup or two. What if a native band insists on claiming land that may be their ancestral burial ground. But let’s say that land is currently held by some corporation, does the government then review their policy of negotiation and merely go on to expropriate that land? What about compensation? Will it be fair or slip shot? Judging from the tightening and cutting of this government thus far, my guess it’ll be the latter.
Aboriginal Governance: 9. The Province will negotiate Aboriginal Government with the characteristics and legal status of local governments. 10. Treaties must strive to achieve administrative simplicity and jurisdictional clarity amongst various levels of government. 11. Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection will continue to apply. 12. Treaties should provide mechanisms for harmonisation of land-use planning between Aboriginal Governments and Local Governments.
As with the Nisga’a Treaty, does an aboriginal form of government, essentially become another level of government?
Settlement: 13. Affordability should be a key factor in determining the amount of land provided in treaty settlements. 14. Treaties must ensure social and economic viability for all British Columbians. 15. The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people will be phased out. 16. Treaty benefits, including cash and land, should be distributed and structured to create economic opportunities for all, including those living and on and off reserve.
So let’s assume the British Columbian voting populous votes Yes to 13. saying that affordability should be key. How about if the Natives think whatever is being offered is awfully chintzy, does that mean that the treaty negotiations are perpetually stalled? This government is developing the perception they’re a bunch of belt tighteners. There’s nothing wrong with that, but what’s the point of gaining a “mandate” with this referendum, if the process is doomed from the start by a tightwad attitude?
The proposed referendum truly is pointless. Since Nisga’a we’ve heard of no significant treaty negotiation that’s reached some sort of finality. If it took so long for Nisga’a to come to fruition, how long will it be to the next treaty settlement? This referendum would serve no further purpose than to give Gordon Campbell -- who heretofore hasn’t been so friendly to the Native cause -- nothing more than cheap PR, political points. Then, is it truly a ‘new era’ for British Columbians? This tune seems a little familiar.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .