CKNW Editorial
for June 1, 2000

We’ve made a big mistake in dealing with native land claims and many of us are entitled to look at the two governments involved and say, we told you so.

First off, where did we get off on this "First Nations" bit. The answer is that the poets, who have controlled negotiations all the way, decided that this was the route to go. From the outset, then, there was the expectation on the part of various native groups that they would be dealing with all matters as equals to equals. This makes wonderful poetry but lousy negotiations. There is nothing wrong with aboriginals calling themselves "first nations", or anything else for that matter. But for Canada to be dealing nation to nation with any group within Canada is a prescription for the disasters we are seeing happen.

What was the object of this exercise in the first place?

It was to satisfy the claims of native groups, all of whom were Canadian citizens, the vast majority of whom wished to stay that way, arising out of European settlement. From the beginning it was agreed by all that this settlement could not restore Indians to the lands they originally, in one way or another, occupied. Indeed most of the requirement for land originally was to provide food for members of the band, not extract ore from or log – much of the land has been permanently alienated. There would have to be considerable adjusting of sights if any sort of settlement could be achieved. In fact, the more you think of it, maybe Bill Vander Zalm isn’t all wrong when he suggests that outside of ceding land within reservation boundaries the settlements ought to be one time cash payments to all eligible persons.

What we are now undergoing is the result of not having principles in place from the outset – principles all of us could buy into. Moreover, such principles as have been developed have not been put to the people for approval. Worst of all, we made one treaty, Nisga’a, before we could make all treaties.

What is happening is so predictable. We have made a deal with Nisga’a, which includes the permanent loss of both National and provincial jurisdiction for all time, which treaty is worse than a template – it will be seen by native politicians as a deal that must be demonstrably bettered in each other case.

Recognizing that there will always be differences in settlements we should have started from this point … the first and paramount decision had to be the type of government each band was to have, consistent with types of government in municipalities, with such wrinkles as were necessary to meet local conditions. This has never been addressed and let me tell you why it was so critical.

It is by no means beyond question that rank and file natives accept the sort of government they have had while the reservation system was in effect. In many, if not most, and I’m tempted to say every case, this type of government was in place to suit the Department of Indian Affairs, not native citizens. Yet what we have done and are doing is negotiating with people declared to be leaders just because they were that, under the hated reservation. This has placed individual natives in the invidious position of either accepting an agreement with leaders and a government system in place that they may not like, and thus perpetuating that system, or getting no settlement at all.

How do we know thus?

From considerable evidence not the least of which is that natives across the land voted against the Charlottetown Agreement which called for aboriginal self government. One can only infer from that that a majority of natives didn’t want self government until they could be consulted as to what that would mean.

We know this too from the low turnout for the Nisga’a referendum and we know it from many natives that have spoken out about the injustices that routinely occur on reservations … all across the country. We especially know this from native women..

Now Sechelt, which was supposed to be the model settlement, with a government that we thought was acceptable … and other claims settlements we thought had been accepted … is unraveling. Its reasonable to infer, surely, that in large measure the rank and file Sechelt Band member is dissatisfied with his role in the proceedings.

Yet we will continue to proceed down the same path. We will assume that the people the reservation system has brought to the top, often by birth only, are the people the rank and file not only trust to make their deal for them, but the people best suited to decide what system is best.

We didn’t do our homework. After 150 years ranging from neglect of to stonewalling of Native claims we suddenly saw the light, declared everybody to be a nation and just couldn’t pause and make sure both sides had their ducks in a row before starting negotiations. And here is the mad part – in no case do we have any assurance from the ordinary native that the chiefs speaking on his behalf has his authority..

Unless I’m sadly mistaken, the result will be that our lack of laying proper groundwork will mean that the native claims in this province will not be finished in the lifetime of the youngest now listening to this program. For instead of establishing ground rules such as who the players shall be, we have blundered ahead, piece meal, with every settlement having to be better than the last one, with all the last ones having ratchet clauses to make sure their settlement is as good as the new ones.

What we have, then, is a hell of a mess you can thank the dreamers and poets for getting us into.