CKNW Editorial
for March 22, 2001

The clear inferences to be drawn in the Premier’s diatribe against the Liberals re native affairs will unhappily, raise the temperature and give much solace to those who want to deal with any dissent from the current government wisdom by calling it racism. Mr Dosanjh’s careless uses of emotive words like "holocaust" and "Rwanda" is despicable.

Of course there are racists amongst us … regrettable as that clearly is, it’s still not only unfair to brand those who question policy racists, it’s most unhelpful to the process. For good policy to be established, all sides of the argument must be heard. That won’t happen if those who stray from the official line are demonized.

I have expressed already my concerns about any referendum on principles Mr Campbell might hold. My reservations are two fold. First, the public is entitled to know the questions. This entitlement can’t be brushed aside with the promise that they will be set by a Legislative Committee. Such a committee would likely be boycotted by the NDP – if they have any MLAs left – and the government members will take their lead from Mr Campbell. If Mr Campbell will know the questions then, he must know them now. And we’re entitled to hear them.

I called for a referendum on Nisga’a but that’s now a done deal. Whether we like it or not – unless the Court throws the settlement out, which I doubt – the Nisga’a treaty is a precedent. The template as former Premier Glen Clark called it.

Moreover, there are other done deals. It’s no longer open to argue aboriginal title – that’s been settled by the Supreme Court of Canada.

This entire process got off on the wrong foot and at least in part that was due to the indecision, for several years, as Delgamuukw worked its way through the courts. There are, however, some vexing problems that the next government will have to deal with and here are a few of them in no particular order.

Nisga’a has gruel thin rights for non natives but what happens when a settlement is proposed with bands that have large numbers of non natives? Shouldn’t we have a formula? We can’t allow band affairs to be run by the trailer park but on the other hand the lessees of that park must have some reasonable say in how their affairs are managed. Tough decision.

What do we do about self government? Are we bound to give every native band the equivalent of Nisga’a? What happens when the band is too small to ever be economically viable? For that matter, what happens if any band gets into deep financial difficulties?

How do we work out the sum to be paid in lieu of land where land cannot be granted – such as where there is fee simple title? This is especially critical in Greater Vancouver where over 100% is under claim.

But there is a problem far more vexing than these perplexing difficulties. Whom do we deal with?

Every band has a chief and a council but these people may or may not represent the rank and file. For because of the Indian Act, and its overwhelming patronization of the people it governed, oligarchies have grown up in native bands across the land. The equivalent of family compact parties have entrenched themselves in the affairs of hundreds of bands. Finances have been handled by a small group and they’ve been badly and perhaps in some cases even criminally misspent. Do we, as one of the high contracting parties, simply ignore the evidence given by members of the band and deal with who’s apparently in charge? If we do, do we thus betray the rank and file? If we don’t, what do we do instead? If we don’t deal with the chief and band they will accuse us of interference with the right of natives to their own version of self government. And if we refuse to deal with them, with whom do we deal?

It’s easy to advance such questions in a tendentious effort to avoid our responsibilities but I assure you that I don’t raise the issues for that reason at all. There must be settlements. But when you talk to many ordinary natives, especially women, as I have, you know there is a serious issue here.

It’s not unlike the situations facing Europeans when they left colonies. They awarded self government but took no interest in whom that left in power. The result was disastrous.

The situations in the governance of reserves vary from group to group - meaning we do one of two things – ignore the problem because it would be too damned much trouble getting involved or do we assume that, because successive Canadian governments created this situation, we have a duty to see that there is real democracy on land that is granted?

What is the appropriate way to sign these treaties off? I believe that there must be a full release of all claims – call it extinguishment if you will. If you were settling any other sort of dispute it would be a term of entering negotiations that when a deal was reached it be accompanied by a release. For the obvious reason that everyone would like to have as many bites of the apple as he can get, the native leadership is opposed to full and final releases.

One final thing before I go. New Zealand, faced with ruinous land claims and monetary demands put a limit, both in terms of land and money, that the nation could stand. This makes abundant good sense. We haven’t done this but that’s not to say we can’t. It doesn’t have to and indeed shouldn’t be a government diktat – it wasn’t in New Zealand. But there is a limit as to what our societies can do and those limits need establishing. There can’t be perfect compensation and we must take that into account.

I suppose what comes out of all this is this – it’s impossible to conduct negotiations when there are no guidelines in place.

I am dubious in the extreme about a referendum now that Nisga’a is apparently a done deal. But I must encourage Mr Campbell to develop principles by which we can continue this job and the dastardly part is, of course, that Ottawa will have to buy in.

I don’t envy Mr Campbell’s task, assuming he becomes our next premier.