Vancouver Courier
for April 5, 1998

I'm always grateful for a free meal so I thank Dr Roslyn Kunin, Executive Director of the Laurier Institution for inviting me to their luncheon on March 30th for a panel discussion of the Native Land Claims issues. Dr Kunin herself was a panelist as were Chief Joe Gosnell of the Nisga'a, Chief Joe Mathias of the Squamish (both are Chief Treaty Negotiators) Harry Bell-Irving, QC a co-founder of the Citizens' Voice on Native Claims plus a corporate vice president and a pollster. The moderator was Martha Piper, President of UBC.

With the exception of the interventions from Mr Bell-Irving, the discussion was rubbish. Poetic rubbish to be sure, but no less rubbish for that.

The public have a number of concerns.

How much is all this going to cost? What about the rights of non natives in the new territories? How much land are we talking about here? What sort of real public input will be permitted? After a treaty is signed, will the natives sign a release?

The fix was in as indicated by the opening remarks of Mr Bell-Irving who correctly assumed that he was there to provide the only spark of controversy. Indeed, he was the only one who asked any questions of the poets.

I should have known what was to come. Anything calling itself the Laurier Institution (not Institute they quickly inform you) is sure to be full of "higher purpose persons" to whom the real world is full of lesser folks waiting to be led by their superiors.

And there was the title, Prospering Together which, while noble in sentiment, is hardly a call to spirited debate of the issues.

Dr Piper set the stage with lyrical words about cooperation and sharing and passed the baton to Dr Kunin who took forever to say precisely the same things, adding glowing predictions of how prosperous we'd all be if we settled the claims.

Joe Gosnell spoke about "extinguishing" claims after settlement and somehow turned a legal phrase for "release" into a destruction of his culture!

Harry Bell-Irving was the only panelist to raise any questions. It was a "them against Harry" session. He asked about the ramifications of proposed aboriginal government and raised serious questions about putting together a level of government parallel to the Federal and Provincial governments and then "constitutionalizing" the result, effectively making it unchangeable.

Interestingly, no one, not even the corporate V.P, wanted to cost all of this out. With the exception of Mr Bell-Irving, awkward questions were just not on - it was one big happy love-in. The Laurier Institute must have been delighted.

There was a question period and, though usually shy of a mike, I took #1 and asked this question of Chiefs Gosnell and Mathias.

"When there are Tribal homelands, will I be permitted to live there .. can I acquire land just like a tribal member can, ... can I work there either in business or for someone else ... will I be able to vote for members of the school board which educates my kids and for the Tribal Council which collects my taxes?" (This is the gist of my question, though not a precise quote.)

Chief Gosnell replied "we're not ready to answer that question at this time."

Think of that. We've come this far down the road without dealing with the fundamental question - will there be democracy for all, irrespective of race, in the parts of British Columbia set aside for native homelands?

Chief Edward John told me later about Navajo, Hopi and Apache lands in the American Southwest where the entire homeland is controlled by the tribe itself. There are no political rights for non members. Chief John clearly approved of this notion.

Perhaps that's the way we must go in British Columbia. Maybe there's no practical alternative. But shouldn't the people of British Columbia - all of them - know about this in advance? And approve?

And what about the notion of extinguishment of claims? Surely if Canada and British Columbia settle these disputes, they and the people they represent are entitled to a release of all claims. Dr Kunin responded, impractically and illogically, about the need to reopen treaties which don't work out right.

Really? Here we're about to make a final decision and constitutionalize it (making it unamendable for all practical purposes by governments) while at the same time telling the natives that if things don't work out right for them, they can renew their claims!

No one, need I mention, wants to discuss whether or not Tribal homelands will be able to sustain themselves financially. It is assumed - higher purpose persons assume this sort of thing quite easily - that they will all become beehives of commercial activity and never need public money again.

The poetry - and we all know it's good for the soul - was beautiful.

Unfortunately, there is more to this issue than the spiritual. But nobody wants to talk about practical matters for fear of giving offence.

Because of this, the results will be catastrophic.