Vancouver Courier
for August 9, 1998

The public, we're told, is ignorant about the Nisga'a Treaty so the NDP will spend a couple of million dollars of our money, all through NDP ad agencies I suspect, to eradicate our ignorance.

And the sell will be a hard one with about as much balance as when they sent us their propaganda on Charlottetown six years ago, almost to the day. And the reason for one-sidedness will be the same - there is only one side, the refrain will run, and it's good for you. (When you think on it, you must ask yourself, why are they selling this deal to us if we have no say in the outcome?)

I think a useful way to examine the whole process, or rather lack of it, is to contrast it with a large union contract where there are four or five key issues. It will contain a number of arcane paragraphs and lots of stuff which no one is really happy with but must, for the time being, tolerate. But in there as well could be pension benefits which are always complex these days and take highly paid experts to put together. There will be wage differentials and one need only look at the complexities of "pay equity" to see how intricate that subject can be. There'll probably be some very emotional safety issues plus wages which these days is far more complicated than yesterday when it was simply so much per hour, period.

After the bargain is initialed, this agreement must be put to thousands of people of all different backgrounds, intellects, experience and so on. Some of those will instinctively hate management. A surprising number will be conservatives. Some will be guided by what their leaders recommend, some will feel as I do that if the establishment is for it, it's probably a lousy idea. But the point is, the agreement cannot be signed until this widely diverse group ratifies it.

But surely this isn't a labour contract we're dealing with here. No it isn't and here's the principal difference - if the labour negotiators get it wrong, in a couple of years everyone has a chance to repair the damage whereas with the Nisga'a agreement, once ratified, it's there forever.

Why is it that Ken Georgetti's people listen to the members? Are they, unlike the governments, inherently more democratic?

No - the answer is that they're democratic because they have to be. Unions by their nature are democratic associations (which is far from saying that they always act democratically) and are compelled to put proposed contracts to a secret ballot.

This has a profound effect on their negotiators for they must, at every turn, know that the members are looking over their shoulders. They can't slough off the dodgy bits like the politicians can - they must face questions.

But aren't these union ratification votes a foregone conclusion?

The graveyards of union politicians are strewn with those who thought so. Rejection of proposed contracts is by no means unknown. Moreover, the union executive know that the membership can and does vote "no" and will, if suitably provoked, pluck them from their office towers and put them back in the factory.

It is, then, the system which breeds this contempt by legislators for their constituents. In America, where Representatives are not bound by party discipline - at least nowhere near like here - they must pay very close attention to what people think. The president himself, unlike our premier, is directly elected by the people. Under our shabby system, the government falls if it loses a vote, ending all the perks and hopes of government MLA's - therefore party discipline is ironclad. (Even so-called "free votes" are hokum - if you think Premier Clark isn't going to tell his MLAs how he expects them to vote on the Nisga'a deal, or else, you've already been stuck with swamp land in Florida.

In fact there will be a referendum. Without any doubt the surrender of provincial powers under section 92 of the Constitution can only be accomplished by an amendment under the Constitution's amending formula. If that were not so, both Ottawa and Victoria, at least in theory, could abandon all their powers under sections 91 and 92 to a native "nation" without amending the constitution and that's ludicrous.

Assuming that the Supreme Court of Canada recovers its vigor and stops being an aging body of social workers, they will find that Nisga'a cannot be automatically affirmed where it alters powers of the province and will declare that a proper amendment will be required. Once that happens, British Columbia must by law have a referendum before the legislature approves that aspect of the Treaty.

When that happens, there will be as with Charlottetown, a campaign. The public will, then as before, inform itself and decide. If the deal is a fair one, it will be supported, if not it won't.

It's from an old Greek words, demos, meaning people. "Democracy" - we really should try it some time.