Vancouver Courier
for June 7, 1998

When you read this I'll be in Blighty for a few days before repairing to Ireland. I hope to report from later in the month because, when you think on it, our problems are similar.

For centuries Northern Ireland has had its version of a native land claims issue. While they were much different times to be sure, Elizabethan and later Cromwellian England gave land in "Ulster" to deserving Englishmen and Scots with the emphasis on the latter. In the modern context we would say that this was not England's land to give but in those days "might" was right.

This land policy had some pretty serious security considerations. This was the time of the Reformation and England was Protestant. Catholic Spain and Catholic France were bitter foes. The Armada and all that. For England it just didn't make sense to have a Catholic Ireland in your back yard. Good Scots Protestants were the best and cheapest bulwark against unwelcome visitors to what was, after all, England's western defence line.

When you think about it, that's very similar to the reasoning which saw the 19th century transplant of loyal Britons in B.C. where Britain's interests could be furthered, lots of money made, and some "savages" Christianized in the bargain.

And what was left over in both places was remarkably similar - the more recently established peoples supplanted the earlier residents and claimed their own imported law as the justification.

The principal distinction between Ulster and B.C. - so far - has been the relative absence of serious violence here. That mostly speaks to the fact that the minority in Ulster is much larger than the native population here and Northern Ireland Catholics have friends in the south to obtain money and arms from.

The Irish path has been long and bloody - so far ours has only been long. But despite the lack of violence, natives in British Columbia now apparently have the law on their side thus can force both the land and governance issues. Thus while the issues may differ, the basic conflicts faced in Ulster and B.C. are who's going to run what and how.

Ireland, after a brutal 500 years of civil war, decided to negotiate. B.C., after 150 years of injustice, is forced by the Courts to negotiate,

Ireland reached a negotiated settlement - B.C. hopes to do the same and has a process in place for so.

Ireland decided that the settlement must be ratified by the people, and it was in the referendum last month.

But here's where we're at in B.C. The government says that any deal they make with any of 70 potential native partners will not be put to the people of B.C. Deals will be put by their leaders to the native bands involved, however.

This decision was made by the NDP on September 21, 1992 - note the date - when the Treaty Commission was set up. The native leaders were assured that if they made a deal, it would be ratified by the B.C. Legislature and that would be that.

The NDP, in doing this showed that they were hopelessly out of touch with the people. Less than a year prior, voters by a huge majority had approved the use of referenda. The NDP didn't think they meant it.

On October 26, 1992, just a month after the treaty process had been initiated, the NDP got the shock of their lives. After spending the day in the Legislature wearing their "Yes" buttons in support of the Charlottetown Accord, they went home and watched as British Columbians thrashed the deal by nearly 70%.

This marked the official end of an era which had really ended more than a decade earlier when Quebec went to the polls in Referendum #1 on the separation issue. With Charlottetown, the genie was well and truly out of the bottle.

The question now is whether or not you can make any settlement of any land claims without a referendum?

I don't believe that you can but I don't know why that has to be so scary. If the Irish can be trusted to asses the issue and decide their own fate, why can't British Columbians?

The real answer is that both senior governments and native leaders are scared witless that a referendum will fail. But if it does, surely that's what democracy is all about. Or have we truly embraced the notion that you only have democracy when it doesn't really matter?

We must also assess what happens if you don't have a referendum? Apart from all else it likely means the government is defeated. It probably also ensures that the peace obtained by negotiation and legislative ratification will simply become an ongoing festering and perpetual herpes on the body politic.

For the government, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The only question is which way are you damned more.